Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Annan Pitkin Mesa, Lots 14, 15X Recorded at ?:ll P.M., June 27, 1978 Julie Hane, Recorder Rec ion Number: 0 20512-093 ip2LL�L, STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael S. Annan, is the owner of the following described real property situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: Lot 14, Pitkin Mesa Subidivision; and, WHEREAS, there is presently constructed' upon the property above -described a duplex consisting of one (1) three - bedroom unit and one (1) unit; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an exemption from the definition of a subdivision for the purposes of subdividing the existing duplex through condominiumization; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting held December 20, 1977, determined that an exemption from the definition of a subdivision was appropriate in the circumstances and recommended that the same be granted; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its meeting held January 9, 1978, and upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission aforesaid, determined that the application of Michael S. Annan met the requirements of subsec- tion (c) of Section '21022 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and that, accordingly, the subdivision of the existing duplex through condominiumization is -not within the intent and purpose of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby determine that the proposed subdivision through the condominiumization of the duplex situate upon Lot 14, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, is not within the intent and purpose of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code 0 0 moK 350 tl%f 535 of the City of Aspen and does, therefore, grant an exemption from the definition of a subdivision for the purposes aforesaid; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the grant of the foregoing exemption shall be subject to and conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. DATED: 1978. acy tanaley, Ji�l� ` JCL I, KATHERINE S. HAUTER, do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of Exemption From the Definition of a Subdivision was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held January 9, 1978, at which time the Mayor, Stacy Standley, III, was authorized to execute the same on bhalf of the City of Aspen. Katherine . H��`�er -2- PITKIo Recorded J 2:10 P.M., Jung27, 1978 Julie Hane, Recorder ption Number: �z saw STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION 295292 WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael S. Annan, is the owner of the following described real property situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: and, Lot 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision WHEREAS, there is presently constructed upon the property above -described a duplex consisting of two (2) three - bedroom units; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an exemption from the definition of a subdivision for the purposes of subdividing the existing duplex through condominiumization; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting held December 20, 1977, determined that an exemption from the definition of a subdivision was appropriate in the circumstances and recommended that the same be granted; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado at its meeting held January 9, 1978, and upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission aforesaid, determined that the application of Michael S. Annan met the requirements of subsec- tion (c) of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and that, accordingly, the subdivision of the existing duplex through condominiumization is not within the intent and purpose of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado does hereby determine that the proposed subdivision through the condominiumization of the duplex situate upon Lot 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, is not within the intent and purpose of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and does, therefore, grant an exemption from the definition of a subdivision for the purposes aforesaid; • 0 -vax350 PmE533 PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the grant of the foregoing exemption shall be subject to and conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. DATED: Q.Z I& , 1978. Stacy Standley,, M/qc-- a or I, KATHERINE S. HAUTER, do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of Exemption From the Definition of a Subdivision was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held January 9, 1978, at which time the Mayor, Stacy Standley, III, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. Katherin . Hauter,' ; -2- LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN November 15, 1977 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN III AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 BARRY D. EDWARDS 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 Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Michael S. Annan, who by this application, seeks an exemption from the definition of a subdivision (Section 20-19(b), Municipal Code of the City of Aspen) in connection with the proposed condominiumization of two duplexes, situate upon Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. Each of these lots is :zoned R-15 residential. The duplex structure on Lot 14 is of a two story wood - frame construction, containing one 3 bedroom, 2 bath dwelling unit, currently occupied by Mr. Annan as his residence, and one studio dwelling unit, which is presently being occupied by Mr. Annan's housekeeper. The duplex structure on Lot 15 is of a three story wood -frame construction. Each unit contains 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. Neither unit is occupied. Improvement surveys for each parcel are submitted herewith. Naturally, Mr. Annan understands that the condominium- ization of existing duplexes constitutes a subdivision under state law and the City Code. However, given that the principal purpose and intent of the subdivision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development, and that Mr. Annan's duplexes OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN November 15, 1977 Page Two are already constructed in conformance with existing use and density requirements, we believe that a subdivision exemption is appropriate in this case. Needless to say, Mr. Annan's principal objective in condominiumizing his duplexes is to enhance their marketability. He is, in this respect, no different than any of the other several applicants for subdivision exemptions whose applications are currently pending. By the same token, however, he is also aware of the City's understandable concerns with tenant displacement and low and moderate income housing. We believe that in this particu- lar case the impact of condominiumization upon these concerns is minimal at best. With respect to the duplex situated on Lot 15, Mr. Annan fully intends to maintain the principal unit as his residence and to continue the present arrangement with his house- keeper. Of course, should his plans change, Mr. Annan's housekeeper will be given the appropriate 90-day right of first refusal to purchase her unit. The duplex on Lot 15 is newly constructed and has yet to be occupied. Hence, the problem of tenant displacement simply does not exist. Neither duplex, regardless of the form of ownership, fairly lends itself to the potential for low or very moderate income housing, although admittedly we find this concept some- what difficult precisely to measure or define. Mr. Annan also understands the City's current policy of requiring the payment of a park dedication fee and of restricting condominiumized units to minimum six month lease terms, and understands these conditions will be imposed if his application is granted. He has no desire to rent on a tourist or short term basis in any event. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you with any further information you might require. We would appreciate an early setting on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, OATES, 4kUSTIN, McGRATH � JORDAN By l� Ro ert W. Hughes RWH/cd • • � /� I � � �� December 19, 1977 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Sewer and Utility Easement Ladies and Gentlemen: We have examined the above -referenced lots to deter- mine the consequence, if any, of the two duplex structures upon the 10-foot sewer and utility easement shown on the subdivision plat as bisecting the parcels in a northwesterly direction. The easement runs underneath a wooden deck built along the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 14 and slightly underneath the first floor overhang on the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 15. However, the easement currently is not being used by the District and we do not anticipate it being used as such in the future. The District's sewer lines servicing these two lots, as well as lot 16 to the north, have been installed beneath the 30-foot road and utility easement running northwesterly through the parcels approximately at the western- most lot lines. Furthermore, the easement itself lies on rather precipitous terrain. Consequently, we do not now per- ceive a conflict of any practical significance between the easement and the duplexes, nor do we anticipate any future problems. We also understand that Michael S. Annan, the owner of lots 14 and 15, has applied to the City for exemption from December 19, 1977 Page Two the definition of a subdivision in connection with the condomin- iumization of the two duplexes. The District has no objections to the granting of the exemption and does not feel it necessary otherwise to express any concern with respect thereto. Sincerely, ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT i .-ifi— Kuhn /-lf= 1 Ku cc: Dave Ellis • December 19, 1977 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Sewer and Utility Easement Ladies and Gentlemen: We have examined the above -referenced lots to deter- mine the consequence, if any, of the two duplex structures upon the 10-foot sewer and utility easement shown on the subdivision plat as bisecting the parcels in a northwesterly direction. The easement runs underneath a wooden deck built along the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 14 and slightly underneath the first floor overhang on the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 15. However, the easement currently is not being used by the District and we do not anticipate it being used as such in the future. The District's sewer lines servicing these two lots, as well as lot 16 to the north, have been installed beneath the 30-foot road and utility easement running northwesterly through the parcels approximately at the western- most lot lines. Furthermore, the easement itself lies on rather precipitous terrain. Consequently, we do not now per- ceive a conflict of any practical significance between the easement and the duplexes, nor do we anticipate any future problems. We also understand that Michael S. Annan, the owner of lots 14 and 15, has applied to the City for exemption from December 19, 1977 Page Two the definition of a subdivision in connection with the condomin- iumization of the two duplexes. The District has no objections to the granting of the exemption and does not feel it necessary otherwise to express any concern with respect thereto. Sincerely, ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT Kuhn I`l r= i ti o CC: Dave Ellis • December 19, 1977 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Sewer and Utility Easement Ladies and Gentlemen: We have examined the above -referenced lots to deter- mine the consequence, if any, of the two duplex structures upon the 10-foot sewer and utility easement shown on the subdivision plat as bisecting the parcels in a northwesterly direction. The easement runs underneath a wooden deck built along the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 14 and slightly underneath the first floor overhang on the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 15. However, the easement currently is not being used by the District and we do not anticipate it being used as such in the future. The District's sewer lines servicing these two lots, as well as lot 16 to the north, have been installed beneath the 30-foot road and utility easement running northwesterly through the parcels approximately at the western- most lot lines. Furthermore, the easement itself lies on rather precipitous terrain. Consequently, we do not now per- ceive a conflict of any practical significance between the easement and the duplexes, nor do we anticipate any future problems. We also understand that Michael S. Annan, the owner of lots 14 and 15, has applied'to the City for exemption from December 19, 1977 Page Two the definition of a subdivision in connection with the condomin- iumization of the two duplexes. The District has no objections to the granting of the exemption and does not feel it necessary otherwise to express any concern with respect thereto. Sincerely, ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT . H+c-& Kuhn N/t= f K;, cc: Dave Ellis A December 19, 1977 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Sewer and Utility Easement Ladies and Gentlemen: We have examined the above -referenced lots to deter- mine the consequence, if any, of the two duplex structures upon the 10-foot sewer and utility easement shown on the subdivision plat as bisecting the parcels in a northwesterly direction. The easement runs underneath a wooden deck built along the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 14 and slightly underneath the first floor.overhang on the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 15. However, the easement currently is not being used by the District and we do not anticipate it being used as such in the future. The District's sewer lines servicing these two lots, as well as lot 16 to the north, have been installed beneath the 30-foot road and utility easement running northwesterly through the parcels approximately at the western- most lot lines. Furthermore, the easement itself lies on rather precipitous terrain. Consequently, we do not now per- ceive a conflict of any practical significance between the easement and the duplexes, nor do we anticipate any future problems. We also understand that Michael S. Annan, the owner of lots 14 and 15, has applied to the City for exemption from December 19, 1977 Page Two the definition of a subdivision in connection with the condomin- iumization of the two duplexes. The District has no objections to the granting of the exemption and does not feel it necessary otherwise to express any concern with respect thereto. Sincerely, ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT i�i Kuhn CC: Dave Ellis December 19, 1977 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Sewer and Utility Easement Ladies and Gentlemen: We have examined the above -referenced lots to deter- mine the consequence, if any, of the two duplex structures upon the 10-foot sewer and utility easement shown on the subdivision plat as bisecting the parcels in a northwesterly direction. The easement runs underneath a wooden deck built along the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 14 and slightly underneath the first floor overhang on the easternmost side of the duplex on lot 15. However, the easement currently is not being used by the District and we do not anticipate it being used as such in the future. The District's sewer lines servicing these two lots, as well as lot 16 to the north, have been installed beneath the 30-foot road and utility easement running northwesterly through the parcels approximately at the western- most lot lines. Furthermore, the easement itself lies on rather precipitous terrain. Consequently, we do not now per- ceive a conflict of any practical significance between the easement and the duplexes, nor do we anticipate any future problems. We also understand that Michael S. Annan, the owner of lots 14 and 15, has applied to the City for exemption from December 19, 1977 Page Two the definition of a subdivision in connection with the condomin- iumization of the two duplexes. The District has no objections to the granting of the exemption and does not feel it necessary otherwise to express any concern with respect thereto. Sincerely, ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT H+cc& Kuhn j /i: I Ku cc: Dave Ellis • • MEMO TO: KAREN SMITH PLANNING FROM: DAVE ELLIS � ENGINEERING%,Y�/ DATE: December 15, 1977 RE: Subdivision Exemption Request - Lots 14 & 15, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Since the first memo on December 1, discussions have been held with the applicant's attorney and the city attorney regarding the possible legal alternatives for accomplish- ing the same results. They both feel that the easement problems can be rectified through the condominium plat and an exemption agreement. Based upon this information we would recommend the granting of the exemption subject to correction of the easement problems on the condominium plat. jk cc: Robert W. Hughes MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council A/l/ i FROM: Planning Office- (KS) RE: Subdivision Exemption - Lots 14 and 15 Pitkin Mesa Subdivision DATE: January 6, 1978 This application requests subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of two duplexes on Lots 14 and 15 of the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. The two duplexes are each located on a lot of approximately 15,000 square feet in an R-15 zone district and are owned by Michael Annan. Some information relative to Ordinance 53 was provided in the application letter dated November 15th. Primarily, Mr. Annan intends to continue occupying his 3 bedroom unit and provide a right of first refusal to his current housekeeper who occupies the attached studio (Lot 14). The duplex on Lot 15 is newly constructed and has never been occupied. Each unit there has 3 bedrooms. When Mr. Annan recently offered the whole duplex for sale, the duplex was reportedly optioned at $275,000. The deal, however, fell through resulting in Mr. Annan's desire to condomin- iumize and sell the units separately. The applicant's attorney stated that the purchase price of each unit in the duplex would be roughly half of $275,000. The Planning and Zoning Commission passed a motion recommending approval of the exemption for Lots 14 and 15, finding that the conversions will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing, The motion was conditioned on a six month minimum lease restriction, 90 day right of first refusal to the existing tenant (the housekeeper), and payment of the appropriate park dedication fee. P&Z's motion was further conditioned on final resolution of the City Engineer's concerns regarding location of utility easements. As of this writing, we do not know if these concerns have been satisfied but will report on Monday. We have just received word from Dave Ellis indicating that the utilities easement concerns have not been resolved. Dave Ellis requests a condo- minium plat showing dedication and utilities prior to consideration by Council. Dave stated that he requested this of the applicant at the time of P&Z consideration and has received no word since. If the appro- priate plat is not received in enough time for review by Monday's meeting, the matter should be tabled. lmk enc. A. LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH &, JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81811 RONALD D.AUSTIN November 15, 1977 J. NICHOLAS MCORATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN M AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE OZ5-2800 BARRY D. EDWARDS 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 Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Michael S. Annan, who by this application, seeks an exemption from the definition of a subdivision (Section 20-19(b), Municipal Code of the City of Aspen) in connection with the proposed condominiumization of two duplexes, situate upon Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. Each of these lots is zoned R-15 residential. The duplex structure on Lot 14 is of a two story wood - frame construction, containing one 3 bedroom, 2 bath dwelling unit, currently occupied by Mr. Annan as his residence, and one studio dwelling unit, which is presently being occupied by Mr. Annan's housekeeper. The duplex structure on Lot 15 is of a three story wood -frame construction. Each unit contains 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. Neither unit is occupied. Improvement surveys for each parcel are submitted herewith. Naturally, Mr. Annan understands that the condominium-. ization•of existing duplexes constitutes a subdivision under state law and the City Code. However, given that the principal purpose and intent of the subdivision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development, and that Mr. Annan's duplexes OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH Br JORDAN November 15, 1977 Page Two are already constructed in conformance with existing use and density requirements, we believe that a subdivision exemption is appropriate in this case. Needless to say, Mr. Annan's principal objective in condominiumizing his duplexes is to enhance their marketability. He is, in this respect, no different than any of the other several applicants for subdivision exemptions whose applications are currently pending. By the same token, however, he is also aware of the City's understandable concerns with tenant displacement and low and moderate income housing. We believe that in this particu- lar case the impact of condominiumization upon these concerns is minimal at best. With respect to the duplex situated on Lot 15, Mr. Annan fully intends to maintain the principal unit as his residence and to continue the present arrangement with his house- keeper. Of course, should his plans change, Mr. Annan's housekeeper will be given the appropriate 90-day right of first refusal to purchase her unit. The duplex on Lot 15 is newly constructed and has yet to be occupied. Hence, the problem of tenant displacement simply does not exist. Neither duplex, regardless of the form of ownership, fairly lends itself to the potential for low or very moderate .income housing, although admittedly we find this concept some- what difficult precisely to measure or define. Mr. Annan also understands the City's current policy of requiring the payment of a park dedication fee and of restricting condominiumized units to minimum six month lease terms, and understands these conditions will be imposed if his application is granted. He has no desire to rent on a tourist or short term basis in any event. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you with any further information you might require. We would appreciate an early setting on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH * JORDAN B Y RWH/cd . Ro ert W. " Hughes .fill- Meeting Aspen f'i Ly Council Jaini y 11, )0711 olincil.111,111 liolly-oliffl- if thitt :;:il,r, was t:() h(t for ill(- pri loriflin'l ruts center. Rta f. f nrJ nvww�d that: it in pv-;siblf• tli,l, if portion of ill(' 110tA0111 11,11t (11 ill(' jW(II-Wrty WOuld be neollot thf! pifoliii.nq art-r4-r( 1-i . Colici 11.11'Iri;I!k('d to Li(Ni) rondo ljorperty. :;t,if loll] tlli• city rould I-o:;(,I-v­ an for ae(!ct;!; to the, Vio rallde. !;s i on(.r l',ijI:;leY .;.,id jl,.• did riot- ll,jvt• a-uY ';I Lhif!. ouncillwil-I Par ry aekc 1 what tiro a,lv.uit;iq,(-s were to swapping of 1,17id. .1*t-ilfford nswnud this would allow Pitkin Count,,; to havt- c()nLj,!uotu; rt..ur !;Ili;, in ono area, zillg! this and IdIl 10 1.1W f111:1.11-0 potent in) !;i I (' for at 1,1W 1.wi 1 i ty. ^t.a F Ford of f ert--d his lot- (,oil c i (,I(q a t i on. Vhe favirdn dociclud 1 01, woro, ivit i to ,; -st rql at thir IK)int Joint !:t for Joint Work J01111 4LI5-JUk, tolcl the lin:irdc; th,it: It(.- had it r - ec r-c:s-o J_v'e - the I I , lit) t (. r J i I i ')I I . Music}: I ),-I!: sod j ill -:; L by cer L, I i. If I a r L ie!; to ut a confirlontial 'momor-jindulil. Mu:;ick told 1-11(. ),(Jalds thWt he had t'Ill-'ed to CiLy and L)II11t.y stiff and felt this is so sufficiently illlportallt: t-l!i:t he llid riot v"'Int: Lo 111,11-.e thc, ecisio:i hint: �;elf: Thi.,; matter require::; the bionnim or all the Maff thAAjfqF about the Insalution or the problem. informed the ),,oards that he needed an (.11olineet.ing study to the lit-i(j,-jt-ion til flunte). Creek. Thi,.; should naL coat more than $750 to WHO. By th(_• time the on(jincering turfy is co;llpl ete, M usic I, 'S analysis; ".110111d L-(C-Orriplote it it(; I ie s I iou I (I Ito I (,if (I y to sit clown ith the City and Count.y to go over the maLtov in detail. 11nr,,ick point.k-(l out that Drk if; already included ill the budget. The by the e;iqi.neej-inq fivvt is not. .mitissioner Kinsley moved to joint.ly appropri;itc, a ilaxiiiijift of $1,000 for engineering 7)nimvnLs; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. nsick said lie would submit a rrienlora n'lnm of information heforo tll(? )'Icetillq. Musick J)Oillt(ld ut t_hat: there is a quest -ion as to whether water is available in lluritc,j- Creek and be nquired . All the minimum stream flow studio:; have been by-pass to the Forest bounchiricq. lis has to be investigated. Musick said as part of the the City and County Could co;;;ple Colorado Consmvation Board to conduct- an in-depth study on lov.,or ,inter Creek. This will be a fairly suhs;tantjiil lindertalzinq. 14usick said all this should 2 ready around the last of January Or first of February. Citizen Participation. irk Strotsky told the Boards there was a third fat -alit), on State lliqhv.,iiy 133, which rings tip the despicable condition of State Highway 82 in the City of Aspen and the County VJ t 1, i n . The State was granted one million dollars for jr,nilediate safety i inproveritc fits . Department fia!-, not done these illiprovemc,nts. St.rotsky stated it is the policy C5 State Highway Department to cut back on sandinq. Th-:-•Y are daincj this because they ot n gasoline tax increase. In response to Min Strotsky urged the. Council and .wAssioners to mite a letter to Colorado Division of and Govc;-nor. Lamm regard- 3q the lack of maintenance on State flighway 82 and 1.33 ancl the delay in improvements that .:re authorized almost a year ago. Strotsky i,,skecll the to consider placing a banner ,.rocs Main street telling people this is a State hic"liv.,ay and if they have difficult- to ite, to the State highway Bcpai.tnient. Stroinky said preferably, ho woul(i like the City -, the County to jointly seek information on initiatiig a suit against CD011 to Y.cinody �wu donficients. Strotsky stated Pitkin County has antagonized them anti they have alltilqon- Pit-Lin, County, and there, is nothing to lo!;C, by antaqollizinq further. Mayor SUinclley trod - out the City has a contract signed for $1,000,000 v'ortll of work. Mayor Standley .1 id he was not going to push any buttons. Jl;DIVI1;10j'q EXF-IMPTION - Annan * Per-g--N Fl"Ov iren Smith, planning office, told Council. this is a re(JLIC'!:t_ f0l_ S11b(1i.ViSi()1l exoniption it lots 34 zmd 15, Pitkin Hasa subdivision. The request is: lining macl(- subject to :dWance P53, Series of 1977, wh:ich now requires that in the event of coyicl(.),-iiini.iiiii.iziitioii, )ere must bo statements made. relating to the impact on existing tcnzuil-:; all,] impact on ie local rental Imu&nq. There al-C WO dUj)10::(.S on 010.'.(! lot-S. 11.) fluglies, represolitillif the applicatant, told Council Lhi.,ru were concerns on tho City igincer's part with a sewer which 171,11IS UndCrnoath, the decl-, oil lot 1.4 and iderneath the balcony on lot 15. Huylus said he had SpOkUil With Metro who MM.Cd they over have and will not make use of these Pappmant.s. Thu other prWAvins is "at the ibdivision plat shows a 30 fooL roadway easumonL. 1lu0cs MUM this hats never )well -cupi ed . There is a concrete retaining will] on the property. lluqhos outlined the site )r C011116.1. 111,1(1110S Said lie aqroos before final recording to work this cils;oillont out %..rithi lve Ellis. HW11*101; said he felt they could talc care of the problem wi-th appropriate !dacatory language. ulhes stated that Mr. Annan is willing to qo along with the six month least restricHon ld the 90 (14 notAcc to existing tenant:;. Thel-o is only oil(, existinq tenant, Mr. Annan's ) us e k e v 1) t., I' . The. duplex on lot 14 will not be listvd. Thu duplex on lot 15 is a brand -w building and has not been occupied; therefore, there cannot be tenant displaccilionL. Mhes said asswilinq UP tentative fiquros Council has adopted On low an,11 moderate incovie id assmiAml 00 Ix!r ci nt financinq and rumdnq lho out the rantic would he '.13,200 ) $86,000. on W 35, the larger dufAu" WiMi owitaim t"" 1300 mph"v fool. unHs Al bo at $337,500 if p0m. HuOvs told Council thot Mr. Aju).in had i'cceiv,•d, a )na fij(l(, offor to purcha.,;e both duplexes, al, $275,M). llukIlles stated that. ofivCMI t 11- !llillq prict, and ill(- roc-ollilliendod illconlo fjqllro:l, tjIu!;(1 al'O not within ill(.' SUL31-10 01 low Id 1110dt'l-ilte ill(_701110 110WAlly. IhNhcn poinLvci out that two atio, Council (ji-aill-ed k QXcIlIpLi011 For J,Judlltlr Of. Unit:, at 1300 Stfu,lle loot be-iltl OlfCrVd N"7 $100,000. loillor ronc-cril of 01dillanco 1110 i:: ovidi,ncir, that unit!; would lit., puvch,i!;­d bo looal lllloy,•c:;. Hugho!; !:,Iikl he 11.10 l"."11 out h(W i *,.. "I it) iflrljcat (•d to coulm,i) lh;,t O;itt,:;, Austin Id M-(;Ioth is current ly ncqoliat inq to puiullo:;I• one of (h(- units for their villployce. 1411lo!; ol!.o olit-It'd .1!; (.Villcllce thot ill thi!; !.ul,(llvi!:iwon th'-vo ale oilt.;Idy thl-l't, c(Indo- uiultiiaI,d duploxe!'. oil lot. I'l 960 s'Il[l,Il.(, :;ojt lol. :'*;9;l'()(I(l 111(1 11011 !;Lll1IaJC 100t SON Rc2yular MCCf ing Aspeu ('Sty CWHI(il J ntu:It� 9, 1't7E1 PI.tullc r- It i 1 I 1'..,ne ,;it wi t lI t hr; con(li t inn 1 hc ;:t 1'11.1i rl,•I I)ave F1 I S s has the all hr,r i 1 y to c.lu�ck ihC 1 in.Il plat, ih, pl;utltinrl c,11 ir( `recomn.rtnl:; approval. Fans told Cmlltc it this it it difIicull c::ir.r T110 I,uildi,I(I'; ,I)-e thr•rt•, ;+nd P.nnatt ha:; a c(,It:lit) iuvrr:tntcrit, in th,.m. y,;Itic said he diet nrrt fet•) iW City r•ould 1001, al' Ih': I.,uilrlin(I tor• low and n,odr•r,Ite .incu,r huct:;iliq. .Ilnclhc•:: 1(1ruc•d tI.,at nnt11irtr_i t)(I,,Ild go of I.wc- rcl till H.1 1:11 i:; is; ,;ati::t Councilman Parry gloved to approve the r.';hd.iv.ision cxr•ul;ttion for ]ot:; 14 and l.`,, Pi.tk•iu 14c ;;a s;uh(ji vi:;i(tn inc) udiliq l he c•orldi tion of ::•t t•k. i I,(, t:,i t11 I):tvr• 1:1.1 i s all(] :;uhjcc 1 L() 1:1 1 1 ::' appr ova) of t he f i.n;tl con;lorti I I i 11:!. 1,] u t ; :;t ruttdr-•d ),y Cou11 l nrtn Van Ne: A I I i s favor, motion ra]-r.icd. 1101151'NG REPORT t;anr:-told Council that Chuc}: Vidal is buincl lrtained as a con::ulialit: to the City to t•%or}: ON definitive: yuidlition Lo rc:t'iCv: all hou: ind lonjec•t under the growth ntrurrt(y(•;..ifnl. Illa::: here art three tc•r;I;;t.ivc caLc•yor.ics; lot: illcuutn ef$12,O00 or under; ]trr:L;r,lie, $12-iI',OrJ'; incor.:c; and rni.d(I)e $3.ft-24,000 income. T1If1:;t2 would translate into co:;ts for hou:;iny. Chuck Vida] to]d Council he would use this t-iruc` as a status report. Vidal w;t:; r;oiII to try to att.cntpt to establish salary clas�;ifi(r Li nil and I- rans]aIc t.hosc into act u,] Price:: for the development- cmm;r:itieu to look at. Vid;t7 said riclht. no-.-., ]Ie has problem :;SLit Lhu form; it is hurt] to talk ;+'.!out price per ::o. Tl-tc City will have to relate each project as to the form of housing in that },rojCct. Vida] said he is restating the County's genera). policy and goals for housing to acconl{,lis;h this. Vidal has recomme11d0d the creation of a housing advisory group whoso tuner ion "Al be to look at sl>ccifis },r.oh7cas in the evalnnt.imr, of this polio" Vida] :;at] fI•_: .is; trySrttf to get people for thi: group o have e�:l:c.ticnce in specific people will be from t.ho privatC sectol- who have addressed housin(j. Some of t.hc• rt•c•nrn names are Pete llcMuth, Snot%ma:>s, Jim Rcser, Pick Ferrell, Dot, ]:nsidn, and Vidal. VtIa said lie would like. Council to consider uti.]S.zinq this cornn,S.tter• as an advisory for the City's housing authority. The comr;ritt.ee will not have any enacl:Ilrc:nt authority. Vidal advisInd Council. to keep tho authority as the pnbli.c housing authority. Vidal remindud 0ouncil that the low income group v:S.il. be predominantly related to rental llousSttcj. Cl,,,y Ilot]S,C1G_121_ :,, - LmployCe Ilmusi.ng ;rt. the later Plant City Manager Mahoney said the :staff wants to know -if Council vaania to pur:-Ile the projc•c-t at the water plant, and (2) ho•:. does Council. envision this. rocs the City build and sell, build and rent, lease to a holrsircJ authority, or ).onrl tent lease to a devclopcl:. Mayor St.andlc•y said the quosticn was 7e.r.t that sinc.•e. this property is in the County, the City has to decide whether they want i:o annex or. c/o through r.ppl.ication with the Covert;•. Don I.nsign told Council the site has very few building probloii= ; there is VNILCr and sel"r available. If the City tac:rc: to operate tinder the density of mlUlti-family, they could a hip h as 200 uni.ia. There is sotnc },goblet, fro:-1 th<_; traffic standl`oirtt with tl:c! i.nt.c r Section of Highway 02. CouncS.]nrut Parry asked if an evaluation on the: probbus oath Cmlrnty has gotten into with o;r,p]o)•ee hc.u::i,ng has hCen clone. Coll nci.].woman JWIn:`torl Sai.'. she• was more interested in cnz:bli.ng lucJislati.on to 11c7p with cioloyvo housimy. Council woman Johnston said she did not want the City to be doing it. Councilman Bchrcndt said ham• was not interested and does not want to develop this land. '1'itis is- open space and the City may want t it open s;paco in the: future. }:ant• told C'ouucil that the Coranisf--iol-r-s will exempt P.Mll 11roj('cts f, the q, .:ttr management. Elan. Council asked that Vidal anti Design Workshop pursue this: project. Kane poilitled out to Council that if they are interested in having this; land developed, there are different ways to approach it. One would be a ]and least;; the City would design the, projoct and cut the land cost out frorl ull.'.er the project. T11C private operators can bid the projcci . Councilman Van Ness said he would prcfc>t to see cnsts for this; type of project. ConnciI man hrishart: said he would li}:C to Gee the figures: expanded for one bedroom; and s.Ludio units. Vidal said there arc certain activities that: have to ba youc` through. (tnc. is the fine tuning of UK, Wassi.fications of salary and price ranctes. The City will have to dufint_ where they want to concentrate, whic:ll income groin" to s:aLjnfy on Mis project. Counc.i 1- man BChrcndt. asked for a value to be set on the property with all appraisal. Councilwoman Johnston t;rov(.cl that. tit(, admi.nistrati oil be. i.nst.rurtc•cl to pursue: the pos;s.ibilit•;, of employee housing at the• water plant; scrconded by Councilman i•:inhart. All ill favol , with the et>:ception of Councilman Behrendt. motion carried. C�OLnlCilman lichrendt lCft: ill(, Council Chambers. Phi:}: DEDICATION Gideon I:aufn,art addressed Council on the unfair par}; dedication fees; on exi.st.i_ncl strnc.turCs. P'aufman said he rcali 'd this is; being contested legally and tai..tl not addre:;s; this legit3.1y. l:aufntan told Co;Ineil hc, was not upset about the idea of a park, dedication fro. Ili' Jis, howove•r, lookilitl for an equitable formula. 1:0111'ntart prey;rnlcd Soma e`xanr'le:; .Ind tatCd that the prCs;Cnt. Iornrtll;t d.is;cr.imirlates a(l.t.in:.;l :;ur.tlirr and older let:;. Tilt, formula hrCak:; clown and the :;ir.e of the lot carries disproportionate weitlht. It v, urld I,e limier: if the` fotuulla V.,I:; (tear to )oclic;ctl vI itr•ri.I, as in tht• conuuereiA .tt•t'a t:'hc rC the park dt<Iic;atiUn fee i:; a ::traighl }•ercrniacl;•, if volt h.Ivc• a park dt'dirat iCn It`s on ,nI c•xi.:;t i n,l :;t I act art , it t;,,old be he 1 t Cr yrat e,i to a A per cc•ltl rat ht•I t h.tn i yi ny S 1. to vari,th.lC lilt. :sire. I:.tulttr;lil poiutr•d out that thu Fchiffs ::((ld Cxi::tini un.it:: al $60,000 anti Ihoy wore sold to exi:;t inll 1, n,Inl:;. 'I'if, I..Iris tit "!ie,Il i('n for W.I:; ri!t t' $1 7,000 f:.urim.rn is; .t:;I roll ('Cnrlt•i i IC t.Iltt ihi:; Intl, accnnt,l .Irnl to t..wl- up with a I that ir. t.IiI to cvt•I),nn and dCt•:; not ll:;l tilt• altar I It:l:, ill lilt• ('it L..ulul:ut pointed out III' Ic i:; all v>:t•ml,i it'll I I eat p.tt I, d, 'lit .tty('o Ill Ilu-' i ill l. Thr ('t'tlnc i ] Ill ollI LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JOROAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES BARRY D. EDWARDS. City Council City of Aspen 130 South. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. David Ellis City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8, JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 January 9, 1977 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lots 14 & 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Ladies and Gentlemen: In connection with the application for exemption from the definition of a subdivision pertaining to the duplexes situate upon the above -referenced lots, Dave Ellis had indicated the presence of potential easement problems. In particular these were 1) an access problem with respect to the adjoining lot 16, and 2) what appeared to be an encroachment of the decks built on the duplexes upon a sewer easement. With regard to the former, currently access to lot 16 is afforded by means of a driveway, which apparently leaves the contour of the recorded roadway ease- ment and cuts across a portion of lot 15. With respect to the latter, we have had several conversations with the Aspen Sanita- tion District, which culminated in a letter prepared by Heiko Kuhn that acknowledges that the District's sewer lines are in place on the westerly side of the two properties and not within the easement shown on the subdivision plat. The District does not now nor in the future anticipate any use of the recorded easement and, hence, the problem is more abstract than real. In any event we have had discussions with Dave who feels that these problems can be easily rectified by appropriate dedicatory language on the condominium maps, simply confirming from a record standpoint the physical situation that now exists on the property. The applicant, Mr. Annan, is certainly willing to do this. OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN Janaury 9, 1977 Page Two You may be assured that we expect to work fully with Dave on these problems, and that nothing will be permitted to go of record until such time as he is satisfied. We would, therefore, request your approval of subdivision exemption in this case, expressly conditional upon Dave's approval of the final condominium map. Thank you for your consideration. GATES,/AUSTIN, MCGRATH 4 JORDAN ► IMFM�\!I . - RWH/cd M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Subdivision Exemption - Lots 14 and 15 Pitkin Mesa Subdivision DATE: January 6, 1978 This application requests subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of two duplexes on Lots 14 and 15 of the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. The two duplexes are each located on a lot of approximately 15,000 square feet in an R-15 zone district and are owned by Michael Annan. Some information relative to Ordinance 53 was provided in the application letter dated November 15th. Primarily, Mr. Annan intends to continue occupying his 3 bedroom unit and provide a right of first refusal to his current housekeeper who occupies the attached studio (Lot 14). The duplex on Lot 15 is newly constructed and has never been occupied. Each unit there has 3 bedrooms. When Mr. Annan recently offered the whole duplex for sale, the duplex was reportedly optioned at $275,000. The deal, however, fell through resulting in Mr. Annan's desire to condomin- iumize and sell the units separately. The applicant's attorney stated that the purchase price of each unit in the duplex would be roughly half of $275.000. The Planning and Zoning Commission passed a motion recommending approval of the exemption for Lots 14 and 15, finding that the conversions will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. The motion was conditioned on a six month minimum lease restriction, 90 day right of first refusal to the existing tenant (the housekeeper), and payment of the appropriate park dedication fee. P&Z's motion was further conditioned on final resolution of the City Engineer's concerns regarding location of utility easements. As of this writing, we do not know if these concerns have been satisfied but will report on Monday. We have just received word from Dave Ellis indicating that the utilities easement concerns have not been resolved. Dave Ellis requests a condo- minium plat showing dedication and utilities prior to consideration by Council. Dave stated that he requested this of the applicant at the time of P&Z consideration and has received no word since. If the appro- priate plat is not received in enough time for review by Monday's meeting, the matter should be tabled. lmk enc. 1 • • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Subdivision Exemption - Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision DATE: December 15, 1977 This application requests subdivision exemption approval for two separate duplexes located on Lots 14 and 15 of the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. The zone district is R-15 and each of the lots is approximately 15,000 square feet. In his initital review of the application, Dave Ellis noted problems with easement descriptions or lack thereof on the improvement surveys. In particular, he noted that access roads are located outside of road easements shown on the plat. The structures encroach on the sewer easement. While Dave was recommending denial of the exemption based on these considerations, we understand that he and the applicant may have reached a satisfactory resolution which would permit the exemption route. We will update you on this at the meeting. The application provides some information relevant to impact on moderate income housing. We would ask that additional information on sales price be given before recommending approval. It is possible that these units never have been in the range of moderate income housing. For the occupied duplex, conditions of approval should include the new 90 day right of first refusal. For both duplexes, six month miniumum leases and payment of the park dedication fee will be required. lmk enc. MEMO TO: KAREN SMITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: DAVE ELLIS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Date: December 1, 1977 Re: Subdivision Exemption Request - Lots 14 & 15, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa This request for exemption involves the condominiumization of two duplex structures, one on each lot. The exemption procedure is generally acceptable in such instances; however, in this case both improvement surveys show serious problems with easements or the lack of easements. The access road to Lot 16 crosses Lot 15. The majority of both roads lies outside the platted easement and there is no practi- cal means of relocating either road. Both structures en- croach into the sewer easement .in several places each. Based on these problems we recommend denial of the exemp- tion. The easement problems need to be resolved so that future owners have guaranteed legal access and can obtain a clear title opinion and so that the public utilities have useable easements. jk cc: Robert W. Hughes ft LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH 8, JORDAN 000 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATE:S ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D.AUSTIN November 15, 1977 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN III AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 025-2800 BARR'/ O. EDWARD5 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 Lots 14 and 15, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Michael S. Annan, who by this application, seeks an exemption from the definition of a subdivision (Section 20-19(b), Municipal Code of the City of Aspen) in connection with the proposed condominiumization of two duplexes, situate upon Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. Each of these lots is zoned R-15 residential. The duplex structure on Lot 14 is of a two story wood - frame construction, containing one 3 bedroom, 2 bath dwelling unit, currently occupied by Mr. Annan as his residence, and one studio dwelling unit, which is presently being occupied by Mr. Annan's housekeeper. The duplex structure on Lot 15 is of a three story wood -frame construction. Each unit contains 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. Neither unit is•occupied. improvement surveys for each parcel are submitted herewith. Naturally, Mr. Annan understands that the condominium- ization of existing duplexes constitutes a subdivision under state law and the City Code. However, given that the principal purpose and intent of the subdivision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development, and that Mr. Annan's duplexes i r GATES, AuSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN November 15, 1977 Page Two are already constructed in conformance with existing use and density requirements, we believe that a subdivision exemption is appropriate in this case. Needless to say, Mr. Annan's principal objective in condominiumizing his duplexes is to enhance their marketability. He is, in this respect, no different than any of the other several applicants for subdivision exemptions whose applications are currently pending. By the same token, however, he is also aware of the City's understandable concerns with tenant displacement and low and moderate income housing. We believe that in this particu- lar case the impact of condominiumization upon these concerns is minimal at best. With respect to the duplex situated on Lot 15, Mr. Annan fully intends to maintain the principal unit as his residence and to continue the present arrangement with his house- keeper. Of course, should his plans change, Mr. Annan's housekeeper will be given the appropriate 90-day right of first refusal to purchase her unit. The duplex on Lot 15 is newly constructed and has yet to be occupied. Hence, the problem of tenant displacement simply does not exist. Neither duplex, regardless of the form of ownership, fairly lends itself to the potential for low or very moderate income housing, although admittedly we find this concept some- what difficult precisely to measure or define. Mr. Annan also understands the City's current policy of requiring the payment of a park dedication fee and of restricting condominiumized units to minimum six month lease terms, and understands these conditions will be imposed if his application is granted. He has no desire to rent on a tourist or short term basis in any event. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you with any further information you might require. We would appreciate an early setting on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Thank you for your consideration. RWH/cd Very truly yours, OATES, USTIN, McGRATH By Robert W."Hughes JORDAN L•J To Date _ ___ Time WHILE YOU WERE OUT M of Phone Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT Message RETURNED YOUR CALL Operator 0 LINE NO. 2725 AN AMPAD PRODUCT WHEETS FOUND RE15R W/ PL AMC CAP L.5. NO. ILLEGPADLE-- LA[H MAIZKF_D WlTNE55 CC)RNER 0 5 10 20 c30 40 W FT SALE; I,- 40l 5/h515 OF 5EARIN6; FOUND MONUMENTS --50UThWE5T CORNER LOT lti TO (FOL.) WITNESS CORNER ALONG SOUTt-IEKLY LINE OFLCGT I/4 - EA5T. ,5EpTEM5ER, 20), 10M SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 1, UGHN F 15E15CHEL, t UED3 ( CERTIFY MAT ON 5EFT1 MTR K-i, 19-7-7, ASUKVEY WAS MADE UNDEK MY SUPERVISION OF LOT 15,13L.00K 1, PITKIN MESA 5U5DIM5tON A.M. PITKIN CCUNTY, COLORADO. ME THREE 5TOFZY WOOD FRAME HOU5E WA5 FOUND TU 5E LOCATED ENTIF\ELY WMIIN THE EOUNDAKY UNE5 OF Tt1E ABOVE DE5CRIf5ED LOT A5 5HMN hERECN. TF1E LOCATION AND p) MEN5ION5 OF ALL 15UILDIN65, 1MPMOVEMENT,-, EASEMENT5 fWD n&-[T50FWAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TOME AND EN- CRQ/ACHMENT5 6Y OR ON Ti-iESE PREMISES HIRE ACCUKATELY IVOWN . TRI00 t ✓IfWAGEMENT � N F t5EISCHEL L.5.12707 3EPTEM6ER 29,1977 NOTE; Tt1ERE ARE CONFLICTING MONUMENT5 ON TIME CGMOUND THAT DELINEATE THE LOCATIONS OF LOT.5 14 AND 15, lT IS THI5 SUf?;!E1�RS OPINION THAT THE LOCATION OF LOT 15 AS StfOWN t1EREDN 15 (5A5ED ON THE DE5T AVAILf6LE EVIDENCE, I ;a m ESE O NQv,q� TRICO MANAGEMENT REV1510N5 PROJECT P-X 1730 LUT 15, D=K I --- ASPEN, COLORADO , 81�1 I PIT-NN MESA 5UI3DIVI5PON1 !Wi �3- �5 2G88 HUGHE5 --77- 87- 2 SHEET TITLE IMPROVEMENT 5U(ZVEY SHEET NO. 1 DATE; 9/,30/77 4 FOUND 05 R>=:R I40 CAP - LATH Iv1ARKEL7 SW CORNEZ LOT A 121.85 F�A51°j OF GEARING 1 1 84 3.45 EAST ZOO.Oo (9 \n F,0G'WD F�ZF-a >&R NP L W/PL"- IG C F- L.S. 237C0 �Z o.0 ,. IS � o WOOD SLAT FENCE \ WEST ZDZ.80 NOTE 1-HERE ARE CONFUCTIN6 ►-/ NUMENT'z�) ON 74E GFZOUNp THA,-7 DEL.INEA-TITHE. LO AT10NS OF LOST) 13AND 14, IT IS TNIS SURV�-yoK'S OPIiJION THA-F TF-44:-::- LOCATION OF LL77 14 AS SHDW�l F-ON 15 5A�D ON -THF- LEST AVAILAgL-V-7 F-VIDEt� . TM nn I\ I _ - 8'i. E',O LOT 14, E�,LOCK I PITKIN MESA SUBDIVISION AM, AREA 15105 6C�.F7. FOC)t-ID: REF)nR W/PLASTIC CAF' L.S. # 1LLF— ABLE LATH W1TNC-71E�E= 6oz. t L=0.S0', R= 330.00 0 O d 1 '� O 1 O 20 30 40 5OFT. DATE I A.UI,UST Z'�!), 1077 e>CAI E : I "= In' E�A6I5 OF BE.ARI NG , FOUND MONUMENTS - SW CORNEFZ LOT 14 To (P.O. L)WITNESS CORNER ALONG E�OUT-4ERLY LINE C)F L-07- 14 - FAST SURvEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1,JOHN F. 6i=1aCHEL-, HERF-SYCEFZMFY THAT ON JUNE ZED, 077, A SURVEY WA-5 MADE UNC>Lz-R MY -SUPERVISION OF LOT 14, E5L. I PITKI -4 MESA ��UBDIV1510N;PITKIN � �htTY COLOR,_ -TWO -STORY NOUSt-= WAS FOUNb Tr> BE LDCA-iED ENTIRI=LY WITNIN THP- EOUNC.RY L4NES OF THE ABOVE DE5CRIE5F-D LOT AS E:�,NOWN HERJ1-4. 7�-4E. LOCATION ANb DIMENSIGNS OF ALL EJILIDIN� IMPFZC�V�h!}ENTS� EASElv1EKT� AND KI&Hl-'S OF WAY IN EM &iNECE OR KNOWN To M = AND ENCROAGHMEN E3Y OR ON iE� pR�Mir�ES AFC ACC-UFAT4=L-Y TRl-C1O MANAGEMENT AUGUST 2-0, IOT) 04 HN F, BEISG+-iEL 5. 12707 � o,r "'• 127 07 s i mi-w Ivianagement, inc. Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925.2688 SURVEYED date: JuNe 28, 19--7 DRAFTED date: JULY 15, 1 J-77 JF2d-JFP, REVISIONS TITLE: IMPR0\,/EM7=NT SURVt=` LOT 14, BLOCK 1 PITKIN MESA 5UaD1\/ISION AM. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO.: 77-S-7 CLIENT: HUGHES SHEET NO.: I OP I