HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Brownell Lots 1 & 3
,.,_.~",~~,--_._----"~<'--' ,. -. -"~,----~--------,,,---"""'--'-_."~~~--_."^"
'-\\
STATEMENT OF ZONING CHANGE
On the 12th day of June, 1972 the Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, zoned the following described property to R-6
Planned Unit Development by City Council Resolution No.
The development of the following described property shall be in
accordance with the Planned Unit Development Plan on file in the
office of the City Building Inspector.
The above referred to property is located in the City of
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and is described as follows:
Lots 1 and 2 and the Common Area, Brownell
Subdivision, according to the plat thereof
recorded in PIa t Book 4 a t page 258 of
the Pitkin County records (rezoned ~PUD).
,~ /&v~1L
ichard Brownell
~-~1r;
Lois Brownell ~
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~/~
day of June, 1972, by Richard Brownell and Lois Brownell.
Witness my hand and official seal. ,~b. ~
My commission expires: Myc.mmlSSion.XPir.~:4
Notary Pu
.
ATT~ST:,' I
') . . . ..L{/ J
-~' ~-- / " ,~~
, City
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
City of Aspen
~~ /'7
/~
Mayor
Clerk
The foregoing inst~r ment was acknowledged before me this~ ~ .
day of June, 1972, by _~'~1>U -<'1...(./1..../ as Mayor andC1'tl1A.-A.GL.<_~<-<-j
~~ as City lerk of the City of Aspen.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: /4 ~O':.A~r /9 '9-<;; " / 1 J ~
~A---L-~ .~~...A...<.J
NuLaLY Publl~4.
,..------r--
Recorded ~:37 PM Oct 29 1979 Reception #
il
i;
Loretta Banner Recorder
21.9111 ,.
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FROM
THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
8{JOK 378 PAtE 317
.
I'
II
II
I
WHEREAS, LOIS BROWNELL is the owner of a parcel of land located in
Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Lot 2,
Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, LOIS BROWNELL (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") has
an existing fourplex located on Lot 2, Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an exemption from the
definition of subdivision for the purpose of subdividing the existing
I
II
I
I
I
I
It
II
I
I
I
I
duplex through condominiumization, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting
held on the 28th day of February, 1978, determined that an exemption from
the definition of subdivision is appropriate and recommended that the same
be granted, and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the subdivision of the
existing duplex through condominiumization is not within the intent and
purpose of the subdivision ordinance set forth in Chapter 20 of the Aspen
Municipal Code,
I
I'
II
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby
determine that the proposed subdivision of the fourplex located on Lot 2,
Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
by its condominiumization is not within the intents and purposes of the
subdivision ordinance and does, for such reason, grant an exemption from
the definition of such action provided, however, that any existing tenants
be given written notice when their units are offered for sale, which notice
shall specify the sale price. Each tenant shall have a ninety- (90) day
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
Ii
'I
II
I
8{JOK378 p^GE318
option to purchase this unit at this price. In addition, each tenant shall
have a ninety- (90) day exclusive nonassignable right of first refusal to
purchase his or her unit, which shall commence when a bona fide offer is
made by a third person and accepted by the owner. In the event that such
offer is made while the ninety- (90) day option is still in effect, the
tenant may purchase the unit for the amount of the initial sales price or
the amount of the bona fide offer, whichever is less, and provided, however,
that all units shall be restricted to six- (6) month minimum leases with
I
,
I
I
q
II
II
'I
II
il
I ATTEST:
I,
I --4.~~ "$~~
SheriJ Simmen
,Rl;lpJ.lty City Clerk
,. ,~
no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
&dH~v , 1979.
~
HERMAN EDEL, Mayor
Dated this.J3
day of
Iii fi ~J; I"
if..'" ,/',
" :, .,.,,/ii';., ~ (",
. ,...,., v~
C~!Lr?\
. - . "-
A-' ....;
"... . ',~ ',; 'I'.j \~ "",
\.- r, ~ \.,\
.,,'
,,'
,.:::'
"
,
-2-
II
II
:1
il
..
Reu~Qtion No. Loretta Banner, Recore
Feb. 28, 1980
c()..,,~..,~~) -~ ~ _ r",
IwN,"-' ;,' 9,
sDn~3B4 ~~~t337
REcorded at l:40 P.M.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
RICHARD R. BROHNELL (hereinafter referred to as
"covenantor") for himself, his successors and assigns hereby
covenants with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado,
that:
1. Covenantor is the owner of' the following described
property together with the improvements thereon: Lot 1,
Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State
of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as the "property").
2. The property shall be restricted to two (2) six-
(6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter
tenancies in any calendar year; and the monthly rental for
Unit 1 shall not be more than $ 580.00
, the monthly rental
for Unit 2 (if the owner does not reside in the unit himself)
shall not be IIDre than $500,00, unless the duly constituted housing
authority of the City of Aspen shall consent to an increased
rental to reflect increased expenses of the owner for middle
income housing categories in operating the premises, adjustments
in cost-of-living indices and other similar factors.
3. At the time Unit 1 or Unit 2 is offered for sale
in whole or in part, the tenant or tenants, if any, shall be
given notice of such offer together with the offered price. Each
tenant shall have a ninety- (90) day non-assignable option to
purchase Unit 1 or Unit 2 at the price stated in the offer of
sale.
4. At the time a bona fide offer to purchase is made
and accepted, the tenant or tenants, if any, shall have a ninety-
(90) day exclusive non-assignable right of first refusal to
/
""
BOOK 384 t'~Ct 338
purchase Unit 1 or Unit 2. In the event that such offer is
made while the ninety- (90) day option is still in effect, the
tenant may purchase the unit for the amount of the bona fide
offer or offered price, whichever is less.
5. The covenants contained herein are to run with the
land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claim-
ing under them for a period of five (5) years.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
executed this //fIt day of
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
)
) ss.
)
this Declaration has been duly
~
, 1979.
~ ~&
' ~I??tld ~
Ric ~. Brownell
Acknowledge~ ~~b~:ribed
day of ~
My commission expires:
and sworn to before me this
, 1979, by Richard R. Brownell.
q/;cr/fJ.
. "'ILy;,
"'<~\-"'f'::::~"//>
.:::~... . ~.::~':,.~ . -- ", <
~ ~.). . .. ' ~ {"
::: .., _ j,~.,,Jl__ .
.~ .:' '.' ,,-,>-_.':'-~
- :,.J .r'
- t.-, . r" I \J
.~ ......" :. ~ l_ "
-...., <".
"" '" .....
Witness my hand and official seal.
N~
,:.. .~ ,"'. ',.
...."
"",,, '
" .'
'. ~',
"" c,,}'
/
\At:1:,~s t :
"~"'~
<> ,,~ ~. . J
Secr'eta
C, '._ I'
..( (i/,/,'""..\
ACCEPTED AND APPROVED:
THE
...,
CIUS~r ,"'~..,'
" '~' ..F'
.. ..,..:-- - . .- -
, , ;:'1 ""'-
By: ..-/
- 2-
r
"
';.' "
Recorded 1: 39 PM 0'".,,29 1979 Recept i on#
219113
Loretta Banner Recorder
8{JOK 378 PAGE 333
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FROM
THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, RICHARD R. BROWNELL is the owner of a parcel of
land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows: Lot 1, Brownell Subdivision, City of
Aspen, and
WHEREAS, RICHARD R. BROWNELL (hereinafter referred to
as "applicant") has an existing duplex located on Lot 1, Brownell
Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an exemption from
the definition of subdivision for the purpose of subdividing
the existing duplex through condominiumization, and
WHEREAS,
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at
on the ~day of ~ ,197 ~
its meeting held
determined that an exemption from the definition of subdivision
is appropriate and recommended that the same be granted, and
WHEPgAS, the City Council determined that the subdivision
of the existing duplex through condominiumization is not within
the intent and purpose of the subdivision ordinance set forth
in Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado,
does hereby determine that the proposed subdivision of the duplex
located on Lot 1, Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado, by its condominiumization is not
within the intents and purposes of the subdivision ordinance
and does, for such reason, grant an exemption from the definition
of such action, provided, however, that any existing tenants be
given written notice when their units are offered for sale,
Ii
II
..
,-
BOOK378 p^GE334
which notice shall specify the sale price. Each tenant shall
have a ninety- (90) day option to purchase this unit at this
price. In addition, each tenant shall have a ninety- (90) day
exclusive non-assignable right of first refusal to purchase
his or her unit, which shall commence when a bona fide offer
is made by a third person and accepted by the owner. In the
event that such offer is made while the ninety- (90) day option
is still in effect, the tenant may purchase the unit for the
amount of the initial sales price or the amount of the bona
fide offer, whichever is less, and provided, however, that all
units shall be restricted to six- (6) month minimum leases with
no more than two (2) shorter tenan~~~~pe?year.
Dated:
April \0, 1979. /
./
,;/,,//
/
r~
,'-^"'~"~~-'"
~=_'~.-'"J ",f
~
~--'~~
-'
III, MAYOR
,Il':!!:"!;r
,\\\' ;\': '
,-" .... ..., /:~',
,./ ~>;{";:t""'*sr' .
f' l~"";-:c1 ~. ',/
~o.\:;l :.:~ .'" ')'.KI;~
\.-; ~{; .,...,.~{ ./~,~
,'/, v R.:~ 011 \\,:,'
'/i ,,,,,1,1>:1\\\""
/
5J
j
-2-
il
-
'I
;
-
c..
/'
---
0001<378 fME336
purchase Unit 1 or Unit 2. In the event that such offer is
made while the ninety- (90) day option is still in effect, the
tenant may purchase the unit for the amount of the bona fide
offer or offered price, whichever is less.
5. The covenants contained herein are to run with the
land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claim-
ing under them for a period of five (5) years.
IN WITNESS
d . ({T'"
execute thl.s
WHEREOF, this Declaration has been duly
day of
~
I
, 1979.
~
Richard R. Brownell
"
COUNTY OF PITKIN
l\\I:HIIIIII...'I,
,\\\'",:j,'~j 0)1) -',,_,
,\" WI ......... J ~'~
. ;::." .." '~.. ~.. , ~~
.-. , ,.,,~ . c
, v I' -,'
Acknowledged, su~sc 'bed and sworn to bef~rl )il'~&1/-;_\ ~ :
day of " (Jv, "" ", , 1979, by Richard:R\ ''Rl-Q.~el.~ '
\ - \J<-o"-<'UN .
" ./ --:,. "?':'-. .... . ;
My commission expires: <:: ~_l--cZ (igL . "}..... ..... ,ii,
v-'f---,' / :""...:" ,1'g ~ C\~ 1'\\\\\'~' .
"" ."I/Hi/Hill\"" --
)
) ss.
)
STATE OF COLORADO
Witness my hand and
official seal.
~r~_
N'otary Pubrfc
'\.
~
,"4,W/~A"VO..,J
Secret
ACCEPTED AND APPROVED:
THE CITY OF ASPEN
By 'lF~
Attest:
-2-
..
ttr
Record
"""
r
'-
d 1;4Q PM Oct 29 1979
";;'
Reception#
Loretta Banner Recorder
2..1.9114
, ,
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
0001\378 ftlG[335
RICHARD R. BROiVNELL (hereinafter referred to as
"covenantor") for himself, his successors and assigns hereby
covenants with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado,
that:
1. Covenantor is the owner of the following described
property together with the improvements thereon:' Lot 1,
Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State
of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as the "property").
2. The property shall be restricted to two (2) six-
(6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter
tenancies in any calendar year; and the monthly rental for
Unit 1 shall not be more than $ 580.00
, the monthly rental
for Unit 2 (if the, owner does not resiide in'the unit himself)
shall not be llDre than $500,00, unless the duly constituted housing
authority of the City of Aspen shall consent to an increased
rental to reflect increased expenses of the owner for middle
income housing categories in operating the premises, adjustments
in cost-of-living indices and other similar factors.
3. At the time Unit 1 or Unit 2 is offered for sale
in whole or in part, the tenant or tenants, if any, shall be
given notice of such offer together with the offered price. Each
tenant shall have a ninety- (90) day non-assignable option to
purchase Unit 1 or Unit 2 at the price stated in the offer of
sale.
4. At the time a bona fide offer to purchase is made
and accepted, the tenant or tenants, if any, shall have a ninety-
(90) day exclusive non-assignable right of first refusal to
".-"-.,:"
, "
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith
RE: Brownell - Subdivision Exemption, PUD, and Final Plat Amendments
DATE: March 9, 1978
This is an application to condominiumize a four-plex and to amend the final
subdivision and PUD plans of the Brownell subdivision in order to allocate
to two lots what has previously been common area for three lots. The Brown-
ell Subdivison is located at Gibson and King,Streets on Smuggler Mountain in
the R-15 zone and consists of three lots and common area as follows: Lot 1
at 6884 square feet, improved with a duplex; Lot 2 at 4939 square feet im-
proved with a four-plex; Lot 3 at 7696 square feet, impnoved with a duplex;
and common area consisting of some 5122 square feet, located north of Lots
1 and 2. The proposed PUD and subdivison plat amendment would delete the
common area and create a larger Lot 1 (11,150 sq. ft.) and Lot 2 (5795 sq.
ft.) with Lot 3 remaining the same.
The applicant is requesting several different types of approvals in order
to accomplish this change:
1. Exceptions (Sec. 20-19) from full subdivsion review procedures in
order to amend the subdivision final plat to change boundary lines
and reallocate common area. Section 20-21 requires that change in
a boundary line be considered a subdivison. This may be done by
P & Z alone.
2. Amendment of the PUD plan pursuant to Sec. 24-8.26 (b), again to
change the common area, which may be approved by Council after
recommendation by P &~Z.
3. Subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of the four-plex
which maybe approved by Council after recolllTIendation by P & Z.
At its February 28th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission took the
following actions:
1. Granted the exception from conceptual and preliminary phase reviews
in order to amend the Final Plat. In support, they found that there
were special circumstances affecting the property such that strict
application of the subdivision procedures would deprive the appli-
cant of reasonable use of his land and that granting the exception
would not be detrimental to the public or property in the area. In
other words, they found that reconfiguring the common area would not
adversely affect neighboring owners and that the public hearing
which would be held at prelimary plat stage, would not be necessary.
*After such exception, the Council may go ahead and approve the Final
Plat change if it so desires.
2. Recommended approval of the PUD amendment to delete the common area.
Their recommendation was based on the finding that conditions have
changed since original approval. Among those conditions was the
fact that part of the common area had been reserved for parking for
future development on Lot 3. Lot 3 did not further develop.
*City Council has final authority to approve or deny the PUD amend-
ment.
3. Recommended subdivision exemption for the condominiumziation of
the fourplex on Lot 2 finding that there would be no or little
tenant displacement and condition on the the 90 day right of first
refusal and six month minimum lease restrictions.
*Council again has final approval authority.
Page Three
Aspen City Council
March 9. 1978
~,
,~
Underlying all this procedural formality were the real i:ssues: of whether
or not the change in common area would materially affect the subdivision
occupants or the neighborhood in general. There was a consensus that the
open space had never practically been used or available for the common use
and enjoyment of owners of all 3 lots. Its deletion. it was decided. would
not be missed by either subdivision residents or the neighborhood. although
it would certainly benefit Mr. Brownell who lives in one unit on Lot 1 (the
recipient of the bulk of the common area). Because of a retaining wall the
area really has served historically as the back yard of Lot 1. The revised
plat does in fact make some improvements that will benefit the subdivision
and surrounding residents in that it does for the first time show parking
spaces for each lot. It also reinstates the parking which had been reserved
for Lot 3 up until 1976, although the parking will actually serve Lot 2
where the development is most dense.
The other main substantive issue is that of housing impact. The comments of
the Housing Authority as well as representations made by the applicant are
attached for your review. During the discussion before P & Z. the Housing
Director stated that there should be some control over the representation
that units would be sold at no faster rate than one per year and that the
price would remain reasonably related to $62,000. However. P & Z, was
unwilling to go that far and instead accepted the representations in good
faith.
We will bring copies of the original and revised plats for Monday's meeting.
The applicant is making changes in the dedication language as requested by
Engineering and that should be finalized by Monday.
,
",
<,p-""
(.-'..,',)
'-'^-r '"
C
506 E. MAIN STREET
o
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P
I
T
T"
I.:"
I
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Mark Danielsen
DATE: February 28, 1978
c
o
U
N
T
Y
RE:
Brownell Four Plex Units (Gibson and King Avenue) Giddeon
Kauffman, attorney
Each "plex" is a two bedroom, one bath unit with fireplace,
having 600 sq. ft; six years old.
Only contemplating selling one unit at $62K, others still
to be rented, option by tenant to buy. Current rent $475/mo;
one year leases entered into last October - November - December.
Are these luxary condos?
Opinion:
if so
1. If rent remaines $500 then okay, if not then
rent should remain same for next two years.
2. Midland Park 900 Sq ft comp unit
54,000 10% down 8~%
PI only 360/mo
Brownell
9~% 62,000 10% down
462/mo
still with in realm of employee housing, but certainly should
not go higher, so should put limitation on saler price if
possible:
It is PYili now, and nced to kecp it as such
Owner should voluntarily commit to rent control and price
control for two years (if possible) .
1,,-(
'\
"
14s. Karen Smith
December 14, 1977
P age Two
I hope this answers any questions or concerns you might have on
the foregoing condominiumization and their compliance with the
new City guidelines. I will be more than happy to answer any
questions or respond to any in-house comments. I will, of course,
be attending any hearings held on these matters before both the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Sincerely,
~~
Gideon Kaufman
GK ch
P. S. Karen, let's resolve this quickly so that I can go skiing~
,
r'I'le (q';
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Brownell Duplex and Fourplex - Subdivision Exemption and PUD
Amendment
OATE: Oecember 16, 1977
As you will recall, the subdivision exemption application for a duplex
on Lot 1 of the Brownell Subdivision was tabled by the P&Z at their last
meeting. Since that time, the issues are referred to in our December
2nd memo regarding the condominiumization of a fourplex on Lot 2 have
become clearer and we are now able to give you a report on the appropriate
review approach. Both lots are in the R-15 zone district and Lots 1
and 2 are 6884 and 4939 square feet respectively. A common area is
shown on the pl at behind Lots 1 and 2. The total area is 5122 square
feet and the area is dedicated to the common use of Lots 1, 2 and 3
(Lot 3 also has a duplex on it, but is not specifically part of this
application.)
Two things are being requested., First is the condominiumization of the
duplex and fourplex on Lots 1 and 2. Second is the rededication of
the Common Area to become part of Lot 1. The latter is requested as
a minor PUD amendment and is asked because of the proximity of the Lot
1 duplex to the Common Area boundary and the fact that is a logical
backyard for Lot 1 because of the nature of the site.
Dave Ellis has commented in general that subdivision design standards
have been met because it was subdivided pursuant to city regulations
in 1972. However, if the request involves rededicating all or a portion
of the common area to Lot 1, he feels, and we agree that resubdivision
is called for because it is a significant change in the intent and
substance of the dedication as provided on the approved plat. If the
common area is to be somehow redivided, this involves the addition of
a new boundary line which necessarily calls for resubdivision.
For these reasons, we recommend denial of the PUD amendment and suggest
instead that. the common area revisions be processed as a resubdivision
to amend both the subdivision and PUD plats. Because all of the conceptual
requirements have been met, we would suggest that the P&Z grant an
excemption under Section 20-19 a. allowing the resubdivision to proceed
only through the preliminary and final plat stages. You should make
a finding that granting of the exception to procedures will not adversely
affect the public welfare or property in the area.
We also suggest that if the applicant pursues the common area revisions,
that the condominiumization applications be tabled and considered in
conjunction with the resubdivision. This will consolidate review
procedures and avoid unnecessary review and procedural overlap on the
part of both the applicant and city staff. It will also prevent
complications in the condominium plats. If the applicant wishes to
pursue only the exemptions and leave the plat as is, it should be done
with the understanding that the resubdivision process for common area
revision will not be requested at a later date.
The applicant has provided information relevant to the moderate income
housing impact. Any approvals to condominiumize should recognize and
"'"'
"'"'
~....- ,,/
-
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Page Two
December 16, 1977
incorporate provlslons ensuring no adverse impact in accordance with
Ordinance #53, Series of 1977, (included in your packet). At a minimum,
the park dedication fee, 6 month minimum lease, and 90 day right of
first refusal should be conditions.
lmk
f J,.('\<)
:-
GIDEON J. KAUFMAN
~ot~
BOX 10001
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
13031 825-81815
December 14, 1977
Ms. Karen Smith
City Planning Office
Ci ty Hall
405 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Karen,
This letter is being written to you concerning the compliance
of Brownell and Lindner with the new condominiumization policy.
The Brownell condominiumization involves one four plex consisting
of four two-bedroom units. None of the tenants will be displaced
by the conversion. The Brownells intend to sell one unit per
year. One tenant has presently agreed to purchase his unit; the
other tenants have been given rights of first refusal and their
leases will continue to be honored. The duplex involved in the
same condominiumization is presently occupied by the Brownells.
They intend to continue residing there. The tenant in the other
half of the duplex will also continue to reside in his unit. He
has a long-term lease; and, as long as the Brownells continue to
reside in their half of the duplex, they do not intend to sell
the other half. The Brownell condominiumization adheres to the
tenant displacement guidelines sought under the new condominiumi-
zation policy. In fact, the proposed condominiumization will not
currently result in the displacement of a single tenant. The
unit to be sold will be sold for $62,000.00, a price within the
reach of moderate income parties. The Lindner duplex has not had
tenants for a considerable period of time. One unit will be sold
while the other unit has been placed under a long-term lease with
an option to purchase. The unit that will presently be sold along
with an unfinished basement contains approximately 1,300 square
feet. It will be sold for under $100,000.00, and owner financing
will be provided to the tenant. This condominiumization will
also adhere to the tenant displacement guidelines of the new
condominiumization policy, as it will not displace or remove low-
to middle-income housing.
-
"-'
"'''.....
"j<F'
MEMO
TO:
KAREN SMITH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:
DAVE ELLIS 'D2:.-
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DATE:
December 1, 1977
RE:
Subdivision Exemption Request - Lot 1,
Brownell Subdivision
After reviewing this request and making a field inspec-
tion, the engineering department does not feel any use-
ful purpose would be served by full subdivision review
for the condominiumization of the existing duplex. Lot 1
was platted in 1972 after full subdivision review. Based
upon these findings, the engineering department recom-
mends granting the exemption request.
jk
*1'~~~uf--
?
,-'---7 i /'
'/ :i'/'/,..,.,f.~
>" L,,;;/ ;J
/
(
'I
1/ ,
Il~(!'
/, ,,' j? /' /
{-.AJ'-'I A /( ( ,
.-,/f f'-- ,- I "
.- {.,
/ 1-
-:
1/// . //..~(,-
:- I\.'- ~ - 1'~ ~.-
, +
j,
..{
/2
I~_i
/
, /
..,.....
I
I
j
f
"'A
/'
-:;-J to
'-..I,-
1//
I
,/ _...--
{
/~-
! /' .,C
-r\ { I' / j i C..y "'---..
.
/
cc
(
-JI,
..v "
,- i/
----'-f ,~..
/
/
G/
/,
..\
I
/
/
/
(,
/
/
'-{-
~
'..--c(./~ :',;)
//- l: I)
'*~~ Ilf,lex tc
" C
",,(~
(
/
/
(
/--
.~ \-
'../-.__J------__
/",1,
,
t; -.
.......
,
",
.,
,>-.d
"-"
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith
RE: Brownell - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: February 16, 1978
After appearing on your agenda twice last December the Brownell application
is coming back to you as a revised application. In order to refresh your
memory concerning the background details of this application, we are in-
cluding the Oecember 16th Planning Office memorandum. Gideon Kaufman has,
however, asked us to amend the application so that it involves the following
matters only:
1. A request to condominiumize the four unit apartment building on
Lot 2 of the Brownell SubdivisionJPUD.
2. A request to amend the Final PUD and Subdivision Plat deleting
what is now designated as Common Area and parking and reallocating
same partially to Lot 1 and partially to Lot 2.
To clarify,the application no longer requires permission to condominiumize
the duplex located on Lot 1. As you may recall the Brownell Subdivision
consists of three l'ots, with a duplex on Lot I, a fourplex on Lot 2 and a
duplex on Lot 3. The lots are now 6884.88 square feet, 4939.81 square feet,
and 7696.56 square feet respectively with some 5122.83 square feet devoted
to common area. The proposed PUD and subdivision plat amendment would delete
the common area and createa new Lot 1 of 11,150 square feet,a new Lot 2
consisting of 5795 square feet, and Lot 3 remaining the same.
When this plat amendment was first proposed,the City Engineer noted that
because there was a boundary line change the resubdivision procedure (full
subdivision reviews) would be required. He did however recommend exempting
the application under Section 20-19a from the conceptual phase and starting
at preliminary plat which would involve a public hearing. The Planning
Office tended to agree since a major substantive change would have been
involved in reallocating all of the common area for the exclusive use and
enjoyment of Lot 1. A finding must be made that the action will not
adversely affect the public welfare or property in the area.
The revised plat submittedto us this week reallocates only part of the common
area to Lot 1 and part to Lot 2. Lot 3 will no longer benefit by the open
area. Theoretically the common area was to have been used for all 3 lots
but the applicant argues that practically it is used only by Lot 1. The
new plat also shows parking for each lot. The plat is now being reviewed
by the Engineering Department.
The applicant wishes to be exempted from not only conceptual but preliminary
plat phase as well. This would mean that there would be no public hearing.
We are awaiting comment from the Engineering Oepartment as to whether they
think this appropriate because it is contrary to their first recommendation.
In any event, your decision should be based on whether the public interest
and private property in the area will be jeopardized by waiving the public
hearing. Part of that decision is a determination of how great an impact
will be felt by the loss of common or en area; part of this should be based
on Engineering's comment as to whether the plat revisions are technically
correct and do not create further problems.
The question of condominiumization of the fourolex should be considered in
conjunction with the plat amendment. If you determine that the plat amend-
ments require processing through the preliminary and final plat stages,
then condominiumization approval should be considered at the same time.
The reason for this is that you want to know what the new configuration
of Lot 2 will be before approving condominiumization. Otherwise it may
be processed as an exemption.
......
-..
-
f.J- (, y'J
"'"
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Page Two
February 16, 1978
Again we attach the applicants data relevant to Ordinance 53. We have
asked the Housing Director to comment but preliminarily it appears that
the arrangement offered minimizes the likelihood of tenant displacement.
So in summary there are several questions before you:
1. PUD and subdivision plat amendment to delete common lot area
and reallocate to lots one and two.
2. Whether to exempt the above from full subdivision procedures
and whether to start at preliminary plat (with a public hear-
ing) or exempt from preliminary too.
3. The condominiumization of the fourplex whether by subdivision
exemption or full subdivison;Compliance with Ordinance ,53. .
CITY OF ASPEN.
MEMO FROM KAREN SMITH
7'/~-7r ?-
~ iYlJUnU..R.1L frh11~~.
~~ p-td ~. -& ~
~~~
k ~ DN . Cnwh"lJI\
~ 6llib' ~ 7f
~ ItAi- h~ ~ I
. .0 - -~. ~ .
.
: 2/, 7 Y
L- . 't-<.U/MA/I,/, t'/ti (t~
L"" 0
,~ 1- '~Pf J L-
u!ti1 hi Aw/( '.h
l/J I /....f U ,)
rc;{, it '
J
{-'0 - (;'I/C-/
'/
;I";"/'J-
,) /0 ( +
I
/j t.
-./
/
!oV~ryl..-
, J ,J I
f
V
I--' i'! t l.
atA '~y (. , I
,
if LA
..... , ' ,
'.,
f
I
J:..: Ii l
.vj I"';
~ < ,'A I'
--;-"^"
,
.,..
(2. ,4 1)1J
~-'
PWJ
1M, nJ.ut ~ ~
I ~~ ~.~, if'.;, ~ k>
~~"t'1 ,~ ruAr;:f.L ~
~~t') r~.
'k~, P~2- ~~
~~~s ~ '^- ~~
~~~.~~ ~ h4,~l>.ij.
f:; ~ " b'1 'P-f'Z- ~ ~ CL.
~ If ~ ~ kAt., kkuv..
fw..tt ~ ~-r')y. ~
Lwft,.. 8; Cl -Iz ~f> vvj
~~ lJ(-~va.tCC~~
" A - ?t-'2..~
~ c.tM.. ~~l.s
~t- ,-,.
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
~at~
BOX 10001
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(30S1 925-8' 6S
December 12, 1977
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Karen Smith
Planning Office
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Karen,
I am writing this letter to you concerning the amendment of the
Brownell PUD Subdivision. Two changes are contemplated, neither
of which alters the intention of the original PUD plan. It is
my desire to delete from the PUD Map the requirement that open
space be reserved for future parking for Lot 3 of the Brownell
Subdivision. The above named reservation contemplated additional
development on Lot 3. However, the zoning for Lot 3 has been
changed, and no future development will be allowed. In addition,
the reservation for parking in the common area was for five (5)
years and, as such, automatically terminated on June 5, 1977.
I further intend to consolidate the common area with Lot 1. The
common area was originally required so as to both provide future
parking and to prevent the creation of a new substandard-sized
lot. Neither of these concerns will be altered by our PUD
amendment. David Ellis has examined the property and understands
the need to include the common area with Lot 1. The common area
has been, and it is our hope will continue to be, the back yard
for the duplex located on Lot 1.
I believe our requested amendment to the PUD plan meets the re-
quirements for an amendment under ~24-8.26. I have talked with
both Dorothy Nuttall and David Ellis,' and neither anticipates any
problems with my request.
Sincerely,
Gideon Kaufman
GK ch
I
c
o
I
t?
r1
.:/
,
'x
I t.1
-
, r' ,(7/1/
. L (. - -.I
&- b . J _ ~,:fk1~/:' J
pre) f d.h.. C-cf4;(,' ','( lb /.12..., I
6?/1-1;7IU L.- j ~ 1_ (
I OMi~, I
{( P-
{I
Ibl Lllll~ -
Z. it ~ jU( ~ ~ 'r! s-
du% 1 Lr~ I t4, 1)
\.\ .'1~")
'" ~,
w...c'VL D,
; It'-
I~~
~t--~ ) ,
--\ , P '\ I \J I , v- . '\ 1'"'
L ~ (::,2-' -€.kk> J) {
~.'g.t....~1
I I, {.,t ~ II- ' ~ lx. q , ~ ~.<-;
4- ~ ,'~W'l'j.-S '1' ""t"-A/,(..
.
o
.;.~ "" \'
+ <(lj..~ J-
3,
;~L1
u
~ j "~1(1 ~ L.
'-f 1J I "~u
y/ ~ d t' . ,
() (, " J.../'~ (..
I
,
..
.;hLN
v
/
'1
c )
t,l_
" I
I.. \.. '(.L.... ,
I
,
..' ~.l.(
..-,~
I
l
2,0!-."$ !
< I
, ,
\ I I
"'-"~'''' .,--
t!W;/
!
I
!
I,
I
i!
!i
II
,
!I
I'
i I
I,
I I
I
, I
I I
I
""",-,,,"
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
v<-v:.w~ at ':1...,.
BOX 10001
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8166
January 20, 1978
Mr. Bill Kane
Planning and Zoning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill,
Pursuant to our conversation of yesterday, I am writing you this
letter to clarify the Brownell application in regards to condo-
miniumization, P. U. D. amendment, and exemption from subdivision.
In my meeting with Dave Ellis and Karen Smith, it was determined
that the Brownell four-plex would qualify for exemption from
subdivision in its conversion to condominium units. The question
of this conversion compliance with the new ordinance 53 has been
addressed in a letter to Karen dated December 14, 1977. I will,
therefore, address at this time our request for an amendment to
the P. U. D. plat as well as an exemption from subdivision. Con-
dominiumization, P. U. D. amendments, and exemptions from sub-
division will be processed simultaneously per our understanding
and per my conversation with Dorothy Nuttall, the City Attorney,
Two changes to the P. U. D. Map are contemplated, neither of
which alters the intention of the original p, U. D. plan. It
is my desire to delete from the P. U, D, Map the requirement
that open space be reserved for future parking for Lot 3 of the
Brownell Subdivision. The above named reservation contemplated
additional development on Lot 3. Zoning changes will no longer
allow that. In addition, the reservation for parking in the
common area was for five years and, as such, automatically
terminated June 5, 1977. The second change contemplates the
consolidation of the common area with Lot 1. The common area
was originally required in order to prevent the creation of a
new substandard-size lot. These concerns will not be altered
by our p, U. D. amendment. Dave Ellis has examined the property
and understands the obvious need to include the common area with
Lot 1. The common area has been and will, hopefully, continue
to be the back yard for the duplex located on Lot 1. There are
Mr. Bill Kane
January 20, 1978
Page Two
only five feet between the back wall of the existing duplex and
the common area. To allow others unrestricted use of the common
area, which is so close to their home, would create a hardship
for the Brownells. In addition, the inclusion of the common
area with Lot 1 will create no significant change in use or
character. The land will continue to be open space.
We feel that the City Council and the P & Z, per 24-8-26, should
allow these amendments, as it has been shown that changes in
conditions have occurred since the final plat was approved;
and changes in community policy which would justify our request
to change have taken place. We would further request that, under
section 20-19 of the Aspen, Colorado, subdivision regulations, an
exemption be granted from the definition of the term subdivision
with respect to the addition of the common area in with Lot 1.
This application involves the consolidation of property; and we
feel an exemption in this case will not conflict with the
intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations which are
directed to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated develop-
ment of the City of Aspen to ensure the proper distribution of
population to coordinate the need of public services and to en-
courage well planned subdivision. The granting of this exemption
will not undermine the intent of the subdivision regulations,
as it is clearly within the area intended for exemption under
section 20-19. No additional building will be done. There will
be no change in density, which is presently in line with the
desired population density for the property. This application
will, therefore, fully conform with the requirements for an
exemption from subdivision.
If any additional information is needed by the Planning Office
concerning this application, which will be heard by the P & Z
on February 7, 1978, kindly contact me.
Sincerely,
,(~~,^. (~~
't7 - IF" .r -T" --~'-.
. f
I
Gideon Kaufman
GK ch
1'''
"",-./
~',"
;~....
}".. y;"
v ~,~ \ ~
....,"""
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Brownell Subdivision Exemption
DATE: December 2, 1977
Lois and Richard Brownell have applied for subdivision exemption in
order to condominiumize a duplex located on Lot 1 of the Brownell
subdivision. Lot 1 is located on King Street near the junction of
Gibson Avenue and King. The zone district is R-15 which requires a lot
of 15,000 square feet for a duplex (if alerady subdivided) and the lot
consists of 6,884 square feet.
The application is part of a larger one that involves the entire
Brownell Subdivision consisting of two duplexes and a fourplex. In
order to condominiumize the fourplex, the applicant has requested
conceptual subdivision approval. Dave Ellis has reviewed both parts
of the application and requested that P&Z not consider the four-plex
at this time. Because of some peculiarities involved, he believes it
will be necessary to amend the final PUD and subdivision plat. However,
he also believes that this may be able to be accompHshed as well through
the exemption route. You will see that at a later date.
So, in the case of the Lot 1 duplex and consistent with the comment of
the City Engineer, the Planning Office recommends approval of the
exemption request. Lot 1 was platted in 1972 and underwent full sub-
division review at that time. The exemption should be conditioned on:
1. 6 month minimum lease
2. 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants
3. payment of the appropriate park dedication fee prior
to recording
4. drafting of an exemption agreement prior to recording
(The latter 2 conditions should require Planning Office sign-off prior
to recording. Se Lindner memo for explanation.)
lmk
-""~,=,-..:..-.,........,_.~=,.;~o:~...~,
1:306
< .-'-...."~..4..'..._~.___.',,=.. .
.,'~'i-;~~W.L::"'"
"""-.......
:"",',',..::....'~..~':.
<.';";-""""'~'-"'~'......""
__~ e~~~~E-_l'~~,! !:..i~.g !...~^-~.P_~!."-hC~~~:t._~.?~.lIl~ i..!.,-g 812?
~-
-----:.
Brownell Sub and
Approva 1 of pun
Outline Develop-
men t plan
Councilman Comcowich statQd he did not feel the City should be
in a position to carte blanc transf~'r licenses. Feel that once
this pel icy is clear, perhaps landotlners will look closely into
what their tenants are doing.
Mr. Veeder. Finance Director,
3-1/2 months of electricity.
legal recourse to collect the
property.
stated the bill represented abOut
Further stated the City does have
amount by putting a lien on the
Councilman Comcowich suggest the City write off a third of the
bill; Mr. Lebby pay 1/3rd of the bill and Ms. Kelleher pay 1/3rd.
Attorney Kern st.3ted the Council would not be setting any precedent
by doing this. Mr. Lebby.stated he would agree to pay l/3rd.
Mayor Homeyer colsed the public hearing.
Coun~ilman Comcowich moved to approve the transfer of the license
-to Mr. Lebby conditioned upon settlement of the outstanding
utilIty bill. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Roll call vote _
Councilmen Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls ayej
Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried..
Brownell Subdivision and Approval of PUD
Mayor Homeyer opened the public hearing.
Herb Bartel, briefly outlined to Council
subdivision.
Outline Development Plan
City-County Planner,
the history of this
Planning and Zoning Commission denied the initial subdivision plat
(4 lots) on the grounds that the lot patterns were inadequate
and building placement was not. proper. Planning and Zoning
recommended the 13rownells prepare and outline Development Plan
for PUD which has been do~e showing 3 lot subdivision. The long
thin lot shown on the plat has been redrawn and is a enm~
area cnat w ld serv X1S lex and h new structure.
T e Sunny Park Subdivisi.on which 1::1 adjacent has dedicated a
~O' right-oi-way along Gibson Avenue, so the Plannin~ and loning
requested the Brownells to do likewise. Planning and ZOlling made
an exception to allow the right-of-way to be utilized under the
land square footage requirement since ~ lots would be 4/10 of a
unit short. n order to make the reD \.... rk the Planning and Zoning
reco~mended a fourp ex rather than 2 duplexes. \>!hich qU€S 10n is
no\>! before the Board of Adjustment. The R}lF area will require
approval of the site plan when developed.
~lr. R;:>s<~r, surv..:!yor, stated the applicant is giving up 2i~ of the
land for the right-oE-way.
Mr. Bartel stated the Council needs to make a decision today on
approval or disapproval of the R-6 PUD conditioned upon approval
of the fourplex. The Brownell's have agreed and Planning and
Zoning recommends the 4% requirement be met on a cash basis.
Suggest checking land "ales in the area having the same zonIng
then negotiate with the Brownell's on the amount to be paid
rather than having an appraisal made.
Mayor Homeyer closed the public hearing.
Councilman Griffin moved to approve the suhdivision conditioned
up0n getting the estimates from the realtors and working out an
agret'\~lent with the Brownell's; approve the R-6 PUO Outline
Development plan and tent<ltive rezoning to PUD R-6 and pun RMF.
Scc()nd('(! hv Counl'ilm,ln ComcC1wil'h. Roll call vl~te - Councilmen
H<1rk.'llun~l~ aye; {;ri[(1n aye; Halls aye; Comcowich aye; Hayar
Homeyer aye. ~k,tion carried.
,... ,_,~~~.:;.;'I'l..4l...,:~"
-y'--~-
'l
i
~~g,!<~~r M(>~t~~R!.o,~
Design Conference
Street Closure
i
I
!
J. R. Williams
Annexati.on
I
I
/'
.
MlIV 7:' 1 q ,':'
or 1l0\1\t'vC'I" and
r:t'1l\oJl'l lng, will
dinr, IllSp~l'tor I 5
lng. Remodelin~
reported they are
c Department.
straightened out
p in a couple of
,h for B closure.
the Sanitarian..
'cported B 11
'cept the floor
rian check this
he had taken down
lspector to check
'lve stated the
ng on the splash
~n taken care of.
Iti! guard is
;ouncil inforr:led
~ompliance .
:0 what is required,
!mises and every-
M8y 30, 1972
..M.:hletic Association.
ulmen Scott Nystrom,
ent City/County
Inager Faye Ward and
tia Council.
following reasons
Jt. would rathel' ski,
i3nd young(.r cc>en-
mter; lack of
(t't center is used
<!. gctl"in.' the 18
t,~ CL.ntvr after
!:OO a .m. and
" a n'st,l\,\J'Hlt
a rcst,lur,:Hlt
.....-'''',~-~~ '~'-"""'l~~~-;:~,,-
l '. '
~-~
:~""':"'Io' -~~ ''''''-
\'r"""
1)I"\I,l'
,\ttdr\'
Pi,l,
Whel'j"
Jlous"
I:
:Sta!'J:..-
,
I
Ii
'Magic
!:
I
"
I:
I~ot'l ;,
lfepett,;
!'oannY'$
The G~:
Blue ~~
Aspe;'
Teen
f_e
i
,
.
~
~
t
r
l
,
r'
\",...,/
"""
-'"
'" I'
. .... 4
Sp<'cil1! Hp(,t inf',
A~;pl"l C f I v Cnunc f 1
N,'lv '\0, I (il?
C(lllllcill1\lIll (\l11\l"l\-llc!J \IInvt,d 111;11 till' T('~'11 (\'l1t"," hI.' tl'IH!,"J"OII'ilv di,,,'oll! 11l1l",1 lilli, ..' till'
Pl"t'~l'l\t (.'<.'n h";ll"d ;lI1d 11;,111:1)'.\'1' \.:islh'fi l.' \'''111 illl1t' frll." tll\' ~;\Ii1lIlH'I' ;I~ pr"~l'llt h' 111"\'1 jl'llill,\',
(lr 1I11!l'S~ thl' (('I'll h";II',[ l'P'lIt''> ujl \o,'ill1 a C"llli'l'('lH'll~l\'l' Jll't'.",I";lIll I'll' tlH' l(Hll'i~:!,; (with lht..
1I1l:H'I1Cl' of l('ll'<ll inll'l'l'Sl) \11tll ,Ill l1PPI'op,'intt' IJ<)/ln.l .11ld r)j"\l~',r;lm dl'siglll'd t,\ pl",wj<k
tPurist t~'{'n;l)'.t'l"S p1'tl)'".;1I1\ ;llld f..t'f.litil':; nl1\! tilt' l'n'fgr.'lm h(' ill'cq'lilhl(' t(~ lh,' \:ilv
COllncil. SecolldL'd hv C011l1cilm;ln Nvslnll11. 1\011 l'<,lll V('It<' - CmllwJllll('Tl COl:lC,lHich H\'~;
NYStTot\l ave; Walls aye; Ni1Ytll' Ih~m('Y(,l' aye. NotioTl c.1rril'd.
,'r-
I'll'. Tom "'ell;; \,7:iS pl"(';;pn( .:Ind n'CllH'f\t lH>l"misSl,m to kc('p tIll' strl','t clOSe'd :1" ;1 t\'I1~,,'r;lrV
\\\:111 f\'l~ the l'Iltir" rksi,".ll ,',)1)(,,\"('11\'(' (011!.' \01"".1;). Coullcil n'qllv.o.;t NI", \""1j,': 'il Co
Cl1l111ci 1 a pn'lHls..1 illl' Iud ill,', \,:1\:, t pl'l"Cl'I\(,I)~'> nf shl'p (1I1'11,')"S !l:IVl' :l~~rvt'd to t h,' (' I "S~::"l'.
.;etiC
~st
IjMr. Bruce Oliphant n>qlll.~5t from Council a lease for the lancl at the golf wurst' for a
!i period of three years in onf(!r that the Af,sociation could E1IIlortizc their costs in pre-
paring the field. Council agreed to contr<lcl with the Association by way of a letter
giving permission on a year to year oasis.
'~4u('st City Engineer stated he could not agree to the prl~posal for fencing since tlw City has a
i'skiers easement in the area. Mr. Bartel Hated he could not go along with a chain link
II fence. Ci ty Manager Wurl sta ted his concenl tha t once a public property becomes fenced
I: in, it does not havC' the sense of beiTlg for public use.
Council expressed strongly their concern, that if the request is granted it be open for
public use.
Mr. Bartel further stated his concern that this total site be reviewed as to its historic
significance and this area if> also being reviewed as relates to the over all transpor-
ta tion proposa 1.
Suggestion was made if the City provides the land for the volley ball courst, the
Association should provide the equipment for public use. A150 suggested, the City provide
the volley ball courts and open them for public use. Question was raised that if at
sometime the land reverts back for City use, is this the right location for volley hall
courts under the City's over all recreation program,
Association concerned that they be able to amortize their invest~nent of $750.00. Would
like to request a 5 year lease of the land.
Councilman Comcowich moved to instruct the City Manager to work out a proposed lease
based on three years with the As~en Athletic Association along the lines of Council
discussion. Seconded b:r Councilrr.an Walls. All in favor, rr.otion {;ilt")'ied.
City Engineer request he be contacl~ed [or fUl1('rvis]o:l durin!~ ," ~_:j__a~~r.;:- (~-
in this area.
Councilmfln Walls movcJ to adjourn at 7 :40 p.m" seconcied by C:\u:-:Cil:-:::ln :';YSlLL,
in favor, meeting adjourned.
,"
LOT"!"illuc- Gr8V{:~" (:~: ,.
C! c:rK
-----;----
!-'~~~l_DX_~~..!:.:..:'i',.
CC"\l'
H{'vtjn:_~ "',';,lS (:;111'.;(\ Cl' ll"d",r "\' ~rClyor EvE.' H"",,;;." at 4:30 p
Nystru:i;, l.{iilia;:; CU~Ill>)',.;i.cb, F(1",s Crif(in, P 1'::,)1)" NJrb11un;.~,.
and Finance DirLct'Jr Dennis \h~"der.
,,: : t r. COUDe i In;Ln Scot t
j;l<:k Wall!', Fr;Jncis Whitaker
Councilli',nn ',,'<111 s.
by the Ci.ty ',!
T:10Vl'd lo i'f'\;Cr.}f.! th02 ~in',ll"'~ of May 23rd anJ 30th
::"LC. !1r.!",i I). (o;neil, (;riffin. All in favor,
as prepared and mailed
motion carried.
City Allor~'('v c\ ll,,'rr E
[j,.,~ fr.y ~:dll,J';C'l- 1.('011 Wurl arrived.
Citv/Count'.- 1'1.'1 ':H'C sll~)mitt(:'d lhe final plats and reviewed ...'ith the Council the recornmen-
diJl:jolls u[ t:. l'lcllUlillg & Zoning Coaunission (June 6, 1972). Appraisal prepared by
Rrl")' Vroolll Wo.I.'> submitted outlining the following: R-6 area $22.000; RMF area $15,392.00.
AttOrI1C'Y Art Daily reported he felt the appraisal was based on present zoning without
iJllprovements. Further request the Council consider requiring the 4% monies be paid as
follows: 4% on the R~6 area and 2/5th on the RMF area since this will not be developed
at this time. Council agreed not to establish a precedent of accepting partial payment.
""'~~1!fC<
',..,f~~" "7~'t;~!r ._-,.'f"<',.,..__,"':I'.,-""-...."""'-.">:'.- ~
.~k~
"
.~.i~""".~'~.r.;i.~""".. .~..;_-<~~.4i,~,;~"",:~'iii.~;"'_';' ...,.....""'",;,;,.,.~L-"~",..
1:318
.Reg\l.l~_r_M~_et.ing+
,~__~.~A.sp~n"City__ CC?l11!c~l_.
. ___~'_'_'____"__ __._.,__:1~.~.22_.. 1972
_._---_.,._-'"---~--
Councilman Whitaker moved to app~~;e---;he -final subdivision--pian-~ith th-;-~~-e-~-ti~--~-
that an improvements agreement for Gibson Avenue not be required under the subdivision
regulations but improvements be required undl'r the building permit. Seconded by C')\IIJ<'i 1_
man Comcowich. Roll call vote - Councilmen Whitaker aye; Walls aye; l>1<!rk,111\Il,IS <JY{';
Griffin aye; Comcowich aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carri,'d.
Councilman Hhitaker moved that the 4% contribution be requin:d ,Iccprd';' !" 1)le
established valuation of $37,392. Seconded by Counciln,;l1l r,:;"tro'~. ,]1 '111 vote
Councilmen Markalunas aye; Griffin aye; Wull' <lve; C(q;C'~I..ie:l ;1."0; \,'hic '''' (;1,-..';
Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion Cel n- i ,..d.
Councilman Whitaker ifF, ,.,1
area to R-6 PliO.
Markalunas ayt'; ('ri L'j"
Mayor Homey,-r aye. :.L-.: J'l
, I", ,{,"," t',,, ?,
);;:',,-,
;".";:! 1.-,,-'
:.:. VOL..'
..J ',:11.1 c',;r,,:ons
C,", , l J;- "
, J ", c c,' 1 ~- ,
jc;. !;,,;
;I!-l'l- <!Yi':
?'';ys t l'-o'r, :1 :,," ~
'" ayl';
,",' ie-d.
aye; \.':-
Petiiti01l su!'!:,:tt('ti J ;Ill'
~'ith thc"l.cd",cil reI'
d on file with [it\; Clerk. Planner :jdrte! review'cd
of the PLT;J.:i," a"J ;~(1l1ing Con::ilission (June 6, 11}72
;,ation. C"l.ll".iJ lii.SCi_,.,;~;L'U access to tbe !_'l-opl>rty from
'):\1
r.,~ \I i :;," ) .
the 'ii
!';
(, Z ri:'.'.,
'I~d cell'h l'~'
CC>\llld,
':OJ ,1 thei::-
,~:cion with
J;, on \'ih,t i:;,
tn tile Pl.::mni'1g
l"C-'c(,rcncr,d", t i.on from the P
"(lD~,5(>J [,;'1- the fi it0 ete.
anu 7.onin:::; Cu:,,~;lission for
& 7. wilich did
Council
recommenda tion
'L;
!'I('t
:i"
s' ..;t
all p.1d;i
,", L(, -'--0"'"
',Ok
emd curb cuts.
Council:r,an ',;hitaker moved to continue this item till the next meeting. Seconded by
Councib',:1n COJ:lcowich. All in favor, motion carried.
City '\lan<lgn: h1url request clarification from Council on what they desire as a recorrunen-
(bri'", :-:,'2 l' & Z C,~,r:-';'1i<-:si.on. Council request the P & Z give full scrutiny to
6" ;,n:;, ,;;[[,';1 i.e. ,-.>l-'al:; '1\"--:)o';ed for the site following annexation.
,t
""",:ill .~, 'I.: utilit:-., eflSc~I('nts on the property.
'otS;:I' <: l i ,--' vacated in 19S7, 3'~r(>ement allm.;cd
l:;1til such ti;;;e as the City desired to exercise the
property owners expense to move the utilities.
Easements estab-
for building over
easements and then
j,:
t'1!? "''''c-.
would be th::,
Charles Gilkey, City Engineer reported there are existing utility easements on 8th
Street and in the alley, agree with this request. Request also included dE!eding to
the City a portion of land at the intersection of Hallam and 8th Street.
Council request the proper documents be prepared to accomplish
also a sideline easement restricted to underground utilities.
at the same time as annexation.
the request including
Council to consider
Hotel Jerome - Jo Ann Timba was present and stated all points have been cleared up.
Council request the Sanitarian follow this up and report to Council.
Gepetto's - Hember of the corporation was presep.t and stated when the violations occurred
the restaurallt was under a management agreement, which no longer exists. Presently
in the process of remodeling the premises.
Gallery - Sanitarian reported the violations w~re connected with the
the downstairs lMnagers have nm<1 taken over ,the upstairs operation.
a follow up report be given to Council within 15 days.
upstairs operation,
Council request
Danny's - Sainitarian reported they have complied with all violations.
Remodeling (arm required by state submitted. Council informed the applicant, permission
has to be obtained prior to remodeling.
CouncillMn Comcowich moved to approve the request. Seconded by Councilman Griffin.
Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Harkalunas aye;
Walls aye; \\'hitaker aye; Hayot" Homeyer aye. Hotion carried.
]{(-qu",'L: t" ":,'1"\',' liqu(1r ill tlh' h:l:-;l'm.:'nt ,U'('d. Cit\, AttoL'ne\' st,lt,'d a ('('rtiCicall' (If
I)(TUl',lIh:\, \,"'\11,1 IwvC' to hl' i:-;:4IIt'<i pl-1.or to ;Iny sl'll ill); of liqlwt' in this ;lr('<I.
COUll",ilman (;1'1.((in moved to table this request until the appllcLlnt CLln be present.
S('c01lL!('d "hy COUllcilm,1n Comcowlch. All in favor, motion carried.
Ci ty ~l<lI1;I~:l't" Wllrl n'plll-tl'd he h;u-; applied to tIlL' fioilrd or EX:lmincrs and Appeals.
I,('t't,'r~ f" .-:,'I'\'l' W"l"(' ~atlllldttl'd f1"om 1\;11'],:11-;1 l>kl.o\ll'hlln ilnd Flor,'lll',' r.l1ddl'n
COlll1cilU1;111 ~j"l-kalullns to ("pl1f_ll.t llh)Sl' 11\l'lLlbl'l'~ or 't'hl' 1l1~tut'tl'lll Soclety who.arl'
illt"1"l'sl(-d in sl'rvlng. Tahll'd till I\('Xt I1ll.ptlllg.
I'~
l.
Li~
lnt,. ~,
T '" f
, '
":-'"~~~-~~~..."
Hc\;uLl1" ~1e,,!:ing
'"",j'" h'hita~",-">r 1
: ~t, '_. ',',-('nd~"a
Ii' fliet <'[ i;lt~-!,"
'if tin ;1\"-:; ~la1-k1l1u
:: i tv Erq:,inl'l;'rs reco",
~,j d~,'_j;J lks [or O.."an S
~,~ ;on study is subm
councilwan Whitaker
:nr th.' money for i~
~'-cllllJ(!d by Councilm
';:Jrkalunas aye; Grif
carried.
City Engineer ~o sut
sanitarian Kinkade r
property. Gave br~
the next regular m~
"
plan was submitted~
held harmless, als~
be done a bout the aJ
,1
Representative was J
6 days. Council stl
scaping plan and sil
closure.
Councilman Griffin I
plans at that time
favor, motion carrl,
~
~
I
j
City Manager Wurl 5'
as follows: Close
been planted; let t
budget in 1973 for
Mr. Bruce Oliphant
they would be willi
reimbursement, not
'Councilman Griffin
budget ti.me Council
possible reimbursme
'Nystrom aye; Comcow
Mayor Homeyer aye.
!
State form was suhn
by Councilman Marke
;Iaye; Griffin aye; (
'I
1 ',lble Council questioned
\~url reported this
ure so restrictive,
,
.
j
C~unci1man.-Walls ml
Roll call vote - Cl
}Iarkalunas aye; Gr:
ill
Plan was submitted
shown, agreement f
approve the closur
pInel' this slllrunber
hv Cllllllcilman Nyst
Councilmar~ Walls I'll
call vote - Councl
\~hita,ker nay; Mayo
COUlll'itm.:ln Whit<lkl
H<lrk;jII(1\;j~. All:i
<:arried.
Cnl111l'i 1 !" tll ted tht
",pre not suhmltt{'~
....
-
_1~lfI7
......... .. .- ...
..~
-- ............ ....~_...... ...
o
o
W6V.r1UR ----
'-
- -
-
- IJI/J ~ l'? h fU CLCh PG'h
~1-"'~) +. ~U-1)J?<?... n.f
/""k.<.. /...,t.... ,\,
I~ Yt-1.-d. 'l-
~t~ ()
~~L
/A.,I d'ttf... ,uJ Y-CJ.I.<LP ICA~~
/Z..~ ~~ L,
M1. t~e7J1 ~ ' Z/ ~
1~1... UrUt\ \..1 'l-\. tL -\ -t.-A.. t{)...t~ ,~ s:o
t& t;.t...' 'I.. -f?; (). j.J..( ~ C)v...J; .. ~ (d ,
~ ! ,JIA--,(t::; ~ L'\ tel ~ ItL~_
tI ~xA <
''''"'''''-.......' ~, , '.."'...,""',,""'.<<' ." '..~....'.....-"..
JkLll f}~_c;
}I, PZJ ,77 . '!;rt-Z,ifbtdQ ~
--
~
cCtu,- W t~ U7~ ~~!?
i
i /s If ~ -b fi.dJlt ~ !tltiA/IA..1f?C tULLA. ~,
(J-fJ~ Iv J-gf I, ,
du~ JUt dJy{ ~ +(0,_
bMc ~L cJ\/W F:
t~ in~ trL ul ~ i ~.
. ~ {LV {UlL -f)LV~!2A-. J
i
~/ tf~., c~ (~~. [~d, I
I I U ).;; I"d!)l;. u
; , {jrYvvvitJ7;l OJLU0, I H~ - r - - - ~ .
. I Ji'K tnwu 7
I I' [1Jih{ /{te-L I Uh C~ tI fUt +u~, ~ 72
WM If ~~ iit~ b ~ rAAd. tv c/Jz~fzr]
,i t[J~~7(lf 0
: :ttuvJ,- p-c/uli~ I ~ -h ~~ 1t{t P uJj J
II J J : , llhJ 0-uJL ~~
II '/JnAJJ-, tl1HJv-~
'I
Ii
,
I
();~
fUz t!JMUJ ih~cy ~ ~ ,ltj
f'vJ-' r~ ~1 0
I..
ii!
'.,1
!I
; i 1 (iq;J~!J ~ (ivU ~ [UUf
, [ff1f/t.-1A./rlL .4r ttl .
0Cc 'f&-c
I
'I
"-"
(Subdivision, Exemption from
FEE SCHEDULE
Subdivision,
/
Rezoning, Park Dedication)
Name of Project:
Brownell Condominiumization
Address:
Lot 1, Brownell Subdivision, Aspen
Applicant's Name:
Lois and Richard Brownell
Phone:
Applicant's Address:
P.O. Box 1477, Aspen
FOR ZONES WHICH ARE R-15, R-30, R-40, RR and CONSERVATION the Subdivision Fee
Formula is as follows:
x
Conceptual
$120.00
$100 + $5.00jdwelling unit
+
Prel iminary
$22.00jdwelling unit
Fi na 1
$3.00jdwelling unit
FOR ALL OTHER ZONES the Subdivision Fee Formula is as follows:
Conceptua 1
$100 + $60.00jacre of land
Preliminary
$280.00/acre of land
Final
$35.00jacre of land
)( EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION FEE: $50.00
REZONING APPLICATION FEE: $125.00 (once a year)
PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE
r:rCOflD or f':~ar..:CCJli\:(~S
1(:) l~.wcs
=:--=- ___'=~-=--="'-=_-==-:::."""'-"""'-'-_-=-_-=="'----O='=_==---=_-====-='-=-=--O--- '=,,=-'.
current m.lrk~t V.lluc of <J. percentage of the
IDnd propo~cd as the development site, the
percentage of the land being llctcrmincd at the
rate of t~o and onc-h.:llf (2')) acre!> for every
one thousnnd (1,000) residents of the propo::;cd
development- (that is, the number of residents
Jnultiplied by h'C'nty-fivc ten thousandths
(.0025) of an acre per resident). The number
of rC'sidents nttributablc to the development
shall be calculuted in the following manner:
.'
~YPC of Dwelling
Number of Residents
Per Owellinq Un~t
Hulti-Family
studio
one bedroom
two bedrcom
three bedroom
and 1.3 for each
..--
additional
1.0
1.3
2.7
4.0
bedroom
Single Family or Duplex
one bcc.lroohl
two bec:-c:'::I
threc b~~d~.oo::l
and 1.3 for c3ch additional
1.3
2.7
4.0
bedroom
A duplex $truC'~u:.-e shall constitute t.....o d.....elling
unit!": for t:-.." PU~-?Of"'S of tin.:; $u:')$cc-::.ion.
(3) ;,n cX.J.;:,.plc of thc application of th,-~ ahove
forlllula is Cl.S fcllm.!s, ussumil1<] th(' cOl1struet:.on
of 011(' sinqlL~ Lindy r('si.!.~ncl' cont.li,11D'J t...:('
b('droo.,::; (Ill a lc'c contilin~llq 15.000 :;'1'.1.11'1.' i:l'L't
with iI l:larket \".J.luc of $65,001l.00 (or $4.33 per
f;quan~ foot):
'2.7 (2 l'l'c:;-o,,,\m "" 2.7 Tf':dd.'nt<;). X 0.0025 iH'reS
x 43,!.60 (:~q\l.\r(' feet PC'I" ,len"') lC $-1.33 (r.l.ir-
k.('l '\!,IlUl' at l<JIHt per sqllilll' root) ... S1,:'.73.15
(h) tlnirtfH'(w(~d 1.11ld !Oha11 bl' ~lrI'r.ti!:..cl at the
CUITt'nt r:l1\,L't. vd111" l'i tht~ !:it., iIH:lu~l1nq it:., V.L111...~
attT'ibtlt,l!>l,' to cUlb, qlltl.'l'~;, !:ll.".t, ~.jd,,\,'.llJ.,;
11lllJ u\illtj,", if 11:..t.1I1,''\ "n l!\l' d.lt" .,f ".'lind'_
j !".t1.)]l,','. 1 :;'\'1 I '\',.,1 J ,Ilhi'. ~,)I.lll 1,,' .q'l'ld i :.,.1 '''',(>1"<1 i ]\,'
to tlwil liiql1t':,t dell l,,'~>l \I'.,' {,\I.,IIl,! Inlll.O('I\:..\.I,'I.I-
tflHl .,:-;;i,..t ill'j '.!I\l\':IlT..~; \,,'1\<'111t'1 01 !lnt they .II.'
confonnilltj. ~l.lr1.,'1 V,illh~ m..y Ill' :;ut.~:t.Il\1 idt,'d by
a dO~l1m,'nt...1 plll(:h.l~;" price (if dll ~lllll'~i 1"'~lItjth
tl.lll~"I\"t [lIlI llll( I.I>'Il' Uldll t\,,',) p..!I'; nld) 01 1,\' ,1!1}'
oth('t" r",'C'lJqni:'I'l! !:l,'.ln~); ;no\'id,'d tlhlt .l:;~..':~~:elt
,. ....,'...... ",.
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FIDM SUBDIVISION REGUIATIONS
Request is hereby rrade on behalf of WIS BIO'INELL and RIClIARD BlO'INELL
(hereinafter referred to as applicants) under Sectirn 20-19 (a) of the Aspen,
Colorado, Subdi visirn Regulations, for an e>>"!IlPtion fran the definition of the
term "Subdivision" with respect to the real property described as:
LotI
Brownell Sdxli vision
Aspen, Colorado 81611
It is submitted that an e>>"!IlPtion in the case would be appropriate.
The applicatirn involves subdivision of an existing duplex. A sub-
division of one lot with a duplex on it creates oonditicns whereby strict
carpliance with subdivision regulations would deprive the applicants of the
reasonable use of their land. If an exerrption is granted, the 0NnerS of the
property will have a canrron interest in the land and there will be a
candaninium declaration and maintenance agreerrent applicable to the property
which will not in any way increase the land use inpact of the JXq:>erty. An
e>>"!IlPtion in this case will not conflict with the intent and purpose of the
subdivision regulations which are directed to assist the orderly, efficient, and
integrated develofllEIlt of the City of Aspen, to insure the prcper distribution
of population, to =dinate the need for pwlic services, and to encourage
\\ell planned subdivision.
'Itle granting of this application will oot lID.de:rmi.ne the intent of the
subdivision regulations as it is clearly within the area intended for
e>>"!IlPtion under Sectirn 20 -19 . The building is already in existence, and
there will be no change in density which is presently in line with the
desired population density for the property.
'Itle applicant would appreciate your oonsideration of this application
at your next regular neeting.
very truly yours,
~ ~'.'~:!m:
Attorney for Lois and Richard Bravnell
mTED '!HIS ~ 4 day of Oct:.OOer, 1977.
.
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
,""~at~",,,
BOX 10001
, 280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
DATE REGEPlCD ~~._.
t, ,..,:,~ {'I'lr:-', ---1
,,",:1 '.. I.. .u ~ "...
"'-''--'.'~'.'''''''''--~'
(303) 9215-8166
cr.:
ROUE;
Octd:Jer 14, 1977
--
Planning and zoning Ccmni.ssion and
city Planning Depart:rrent
Aspen city Hall
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attention: Karen Smith
l€ : Brownell CondaniniumsjFour 'IWo-1:Jedroan Condominium Units Already
Constructed Situated on Lot 2, Brownell Subdivision, city of Aspen
Dear Karen,
Enclosed herewith are ten ccpies of a conceptual plat presentation and ten
copies of the requisite title evidence respecting the above project which
is presently fully constructed, occupied and in place on the property described
in the conceptual plat plan and evidence of title. Per nw oonversation with
Dave Ellis, the enclosed plat will suffice for conceptual presentation.
I am suJ:mi.tting this matter in ac=dance with requi.renents of conceptual
presentation \moor Section 20-10 of the M..micipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Enclosed is a check in the aIlO\mt of $120. Op the processing fee for this
application. I look forward to answering any questions or responding to any
rorments which the planning staff, engineering departIrent, or planning
cx:mnission might have. I will be attending any hearing held on this matter.
Sincerely,
)~CJL r-i"f-
Gideon Kaufman
GKch
Enclosures
cc Bud Bra.mell
ot,'ldEr'i~;",.tIP !d4D LIELJ CSe\'IJ:'lc!\ri'i-~
f 77-l0-29
....."
TO 't.Hi()~1j 1'1:' r1AY CO[,rCERN:
ASPi:;c'~ TITLE CO,'IPAi-lY hereby certifies that the follO'.'ling document (s)
constitute copies of all of the instr~"ents on record in the office
of the Recorder of Deeds of the County of Pitkin, Colorado, shm-ling
tnCl persons I-Iho appear to have acquired an interest of record affecting
tne title to the following described real estate located in said County
of Pitkin, Colorado.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots land 2
BROl-lNEL SUBDIVISION
according to the Plat filed in the Records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County,
Colorado, in Plat Book 4 at Page 258.
Pitkin County, Colorado
FEE SI~~LE TITLE IS VESTED IN:
RICHARD BROl-lNELL and LOIS BROl-lNELL
LIENS
Deed of Trust from Richard Brownell and Lois Bro,mell to the Public Trustee of Pitkin
County, Colorado for the use of N.A. and Sylvia Dossigny and Orest E. and Amelia Gerbaz,
to secure'$12,000.00, dated May la, 1968 and recorded May 17, 1968 in Book 234 at Page 677.
Deed of Trust from Richard BroHnell and Lois Bro,mell to the Public Trustee of Pitkin
County, Colorado, for the use of Orest E. Cerbaz and Amelia Gerbaz, N.A. Dossigny and
Sylvia Dossigny, to secure $29,000.00, dated June 15, 1972 and recorded June 20, 1972
in Book 264 at Page 577.
EXCEPT all instrlli"ents appearing to encumber said property whiD~ have
been released or satisfied; and
EXCEPT general entries or documents ,,,hich do not appear to affect
adversely the interest of the present apparent ol-lner.
Suhsequent to November 13, 1964
. ;
This Certificate is for the use and benefit of:
_GIDEON KAUFMAN
.
Noc,:i-:: Although \-Ie believe the facts stated herein are true, it is
unders toad and agreed that the liability of ASPEn TI'['LE COI1PANY ",ill be
liIT'.ited to the amount of the fee charged here ~nder.
DZltcd this 2lst Day OCTOBER
19 77 , at 8:00 A. N.
l\SPF" -'.1:.1'1'[ P CO,,:p~.J"
... .. -'-'I." /_ ,,_.. I ~_ !~L\; ~
~r;-7/Vtrh~~ S ~
7--'-------- ,
r
If:f~
Recorded at 1:57PM April 11, 1979 Loretta Banner Recorder Reception NdZl,;J'l1lES
_3Gn i},GL 422
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FROM
THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, RICHARD R. BROWNELL is the owner of a parcel of
land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows: Lot 3, Brownell Subdivision, City of
Aspen, and
WHEREAS, RICHARD R. BROWNELL (hereinafter referred to as
"applicant") has an existing duplex located on Lot 3, Brownell
Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an exemption from
the definition of subdivision for the purpose of subdividing
the existing duplex through condominiumization, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at
its meeting held on the ~ day of ~
, 197?,
determined that an exemption from the definition of subdivision
is appropriate and recommended that the same be granted, and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the subdivision
of the existing duplex through condominiumization is not within
the intent and purpose of the subdivision ordinance set forth
in Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado,
does hereby determine that the proposed subdivision of the duplex
located on Lot 3, Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado, by its condominiumization is not
within the intents and purposes of the subdivision ordinance
and does, for such reason, grant an exemption from the definition
of such action, provided, however, that any existing tenants be
given written notice when their units are offered for sale,
_3fjfj "",LL 423
which notice shall specify the sale price. Each tenant shall
have a ninety- (90) day option to purchase this unit at this
price. In addition, each tenant shall have a ninety- (90) day
exclusive non-assignable right of first refusal to purchase
his or her unit, which shall commence when a bona fide offer
is made by a third person and accepted by the owner. In the
event that such offer is made while the ninety- (90) day option
is still in effect, the tenant may purchase the unit for the
amount of the initial sales price or the amount of the bona
fide offer, whichever is less, and provided, however, that all
units shall be restricted to six- (6) month minimum leases with
\\ l1"U"I",
.,,\ :,-C J ""r/
\' 'of 'J \ <, ~. "I.... '.
,"\..I\"....:.~'.Jr-J'<""'-:.. ",
, (i'..' ' ... """
. .
, ~~,; (.k~~
-: . <.::
? ~
,. '~f.."
(: /....,:,.1.."',.;. ,,~
\.-- Dr...,-,! \\'
11\\'\'
";!r pll
no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
,,/~/ ,f)
. ,,- ,:.- ,1"-
/~';;.,_. // //".'~"C_'/~:_~
.,rt"' -7;;;l- / c--,r' "Ie' I
</'~TACy1ANDLEY, III, t-'I.AYOR /
I ~-/f' I' '~>
~~.--
~~~~"~--'~ .~
Dated:
April I() , 1979.
.J~
-2-
:'.e.corded at 1: 56PI1 April 11, 1979 Loretta Banner Recorder
213417..
Reception No.
_3Gf) iACl420
~:t1:Y-
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
RICHARD R. BRO~VNELL (hereinafter referred to as
"covenantor") for himself, his successors and assigns hereby
covenants with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado,
that:
1. Covenantor is the owner of the following described
property together with the improvements thereon: Lot 3,
Brownell Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State
of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as the "property").
2. At the time Unit 1 or Unit 2 is offered for sale
in whole or in part, the tenant or tenants, if any, shall be
given notice of such offer together with the offered price. Each
tenant shall have a ninety- (90) day non-assignable option to
purchase Unit 1 or Unit 2 at the price stated in the offer of
sale.
3. At the time a bona fide offer to purchase is made
and accepted, the tenant or tenants, if any, shall have a ninety-
(90) day exclusive non-assignable right of first refusal to
purchase Unit 1 or Unit 2. In the event that such offer is
made while the ninety- (90) day option is still in effect, the
tenant may purchase the unit for the amount of the bona fide
offer or offered price, whichever is less,
4. The covenants contained herein are to run with the
land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claim-
ing under them for a period of five (S) years.
, .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
executed this II~day of
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN
_3(;0 i ,',L~ 421
this Declaration has been duly
/1/1"~P
LA-fY~ ,1979.
~~
Richard . Brownell
" I ,'- Acknowledg~, ,~~b?:ribed and sworn
/l'ffl day of ~ ' 1979. by
..,:~:'~':::f':,>,",.'~MY commission expires: 0/1J--/SJ-.
.::':'.,'~'.\~~"""" <:.C:,-;, =-::.. ~~,' :
f''-i....\'''''f.,..,,/,lWitne$s my hand and official seal.
t {\_~~~~";~~ >.~ . ii".'
'" " /)1" ~, '('.: ;:
S c}". .' l~ '._ \ v .' Cl .:.-
~<:~,~.,~,~' :,~ :i:;,,;'..."':"/
Attest:
L~) Jtfal:
ecretar
to before me this
Richard R. Brownell.
f1~~~
Notary Public
ACCEPTED AND APPROVED:
THE CITY OF ASPEN
"\ '\
,~~ ==:~
'(J.,IC{ f\myeNE-~y
By,;,
-2-
\>
-~
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of LOIS BRO~mELL and
RICHARD BROWNELL (hereinafter referred to as applicants)
under Section 20-l9(a) of the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision
Regulations, for an exemption from the definition of the
term "Subdivision" with respect to the real property described as:
Lot 1 & Lot 3, Brownell Subdivision,
Pitkin County, Colorado
It is submitted that an exemption in the case would be appropriate.
The application involves existing duplexs. A subdivision
of lots with duplexs on it creates conditions whereby strict
compliance with subdivision regulations would deprive the
applicants of the reasonable use of their land. The owner will
continue to live in one unit. There will not be any increase
in the land use impact of the property. An exemption in this
case will not conflict with the intent and purpose of the sub-
division regulations which are directed to assist the orderly,
efficient, and integrated development of the City of Aspen, to
insure the proper distribution of population, to coordinate
the need for public services, and to encourage well-planned
subdivision.
The granting of this application will not undermine the
intent of the subdivision regulations as it is clearly within
the area intended for exemption under 20-19. The buildings
are already in existence, and there will be no change in density
which is presently in line with the desired population density
for the property.
The applicants would appreciate your consideration of this
application at your next regular meeting.
Very truly yours,
G~ t01ufman
Attorney for Lois Brownell and
Richard Brownell, Applicants
DATED this 28th day of June, 1978
',-....
.
'"'~
-
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Brownell Duplexes - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: November 21, 1978
In your packet you will find the original letter requesting subdivision
exemption and a couple of additional letters which were requested by
the Planning Office for clarification of the application's compliance
with Ordinance #53. The request is to condominiumize two duplexes which
are located on lot 1 and lot 3, Brownell subdivision. Lot 1 of the
Brownell subdivision is zoned R-15 and lot 3 is zoned R-6. Due to the
fact that this application was in process at the time of the moratorium,
it needs to be reviewed under the criteria of Ordinance #53.
The application was referred to the City Engineering Oepartment which
comments as follows: "the engineering department has just recently
reviewed the amended plat and PUD for the Brownell Subdivision, how-
ever, there is one item which we would like to see implemented as a
condition of approval for this subdivision exemption. That condition
would be to have the fence which is errected a roximatel f et in-
the right-of-way of Gibson Ave. move to the property line on
lot 3. 1S 0 ma a e earlier plat amendment re-
views since the amendments dealt primarily with lots 1 and 2 and not
lot 3. The fence as constructed creates a very tight turn on Gibs
d Park Avenues, and obstructs access b
fire hydrant."
The application and additional letters of clarification regarding
Ordinance #53 were referred to the Housing Oirector whose comments
are attached. The applicant is attempting to illustrate minimum ten-
ant displacement by committing two of the four units (one of which
is owner occupied) to the PMH guidelines for a period of five years
and by signing new one year leases recently, which hold the other two
rental units in their present state for a period of one year. Mark,
however, does not feel that this represents minimum tenant displace-
ment and suggests that a PMH commitment on all three of the rental
units for a period of five years would be more appropriate.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at their
regular meeting on November 7 and recommended you approve the exemption
subject to the preparation of an agreement satisfactory to the City
Attorney restricting two units to current rents plus the annual PMH
escalation for a period of five years and prohibiting the sale of these
two units for five years.
In view of the considerable difficulty we have experienced in adminis-
ering Ordinance #53 evenly and fairly, the Planning Office recommends
your approval of the compromi se descri bed by the P&Z.
sr
-,.........'_.._'~.--"'---,--~~"..'"--
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
u{tr.w~ at 'if.,..
BOX 1000t
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8166
July 18, 1978
Richard Grice
Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Richard:
I'm writing this letter to address the Brownell
condominiumization's compliance with Ordinance 53. The sub-
division application involves the condominiumization of two
existing duplexes. The first duplex is located on Lot 1,
Brownell Subdivision. Richard Brownell has occupied that
unit for the past seven years and will continue to do so.
The other unit is occupied by a tenant who has been there
for a number of years and will also remain in residence.
By virtue of Mr. Brownell's continued residence in his unit,
there will be minimal tenant displacement and he is willing
to offer assurances that the tenant will be offered a Right-
of-First Refusal and given an opportunity to purchase the
unit. It is not contemplated at this time that the unit will
be sold within the next 18 months.
There is a duplex located on Lot 3. There are no present
plans to sell this particular duplex. As a result of the
Brownell divorce, the assets of the parties have been allocated
and split and it is necessary to do this by way of condominium-
ization. To insure that there will in fact be no tenant dis-
placement at the present time, Mr. Brownell is willing to assure
that he will not sell either unit for 18 months. Again, I
think if you examine this in light of the intent of Ordinance
53, you will find that this condominiumization comp1ys with
the intent of the Ordinance, If you have any questions on
this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
j+ rJ';J-o .,
Gideon Kaufman
GK/gg
-'-""--"'-"'~'-~^'''-''''.^-''''-'~<-"''-'"'-'-'''-~~'-~~-~-'.~,".
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
~1t.w~ at ~
BOX 10001
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 8US11
(303) Q25-S166
October 20, 1978
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Richard Grice
Planning Office
City of Aspen
105 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Brownell Condominiumization
Dear Richard,
Per my meeting with Ron Stock and you concerning the
Brownell condominiumization, I am writing this letter to
memorialize my proposal for the Brownell condominiumization
and its compliance with Ordinance 53. The Brownell condo-
miniumization was exempt from the condominiumization mora-
torium and the new condominium policy to be adopted. It is,
therefore, my contention that the Brownell condominiumization
should be treated in the same manner as previous condQ-c
miniumizations, Every condominiumizatio~ presented to counsel
under Ordinance 53 has been approved; and, as a result, a new
approach is being sought. Many of the condominiumizations have
been approved despite a direct reduction in low and moderate
housing and despite tenant displacement. Under the past policy,
there have been numerous attempts bv land owners to rid their
property of any tenant prior to the condominiumization. In
effect, the old ordinance rewarded those who accomplished
what you were, in effect, trying to avoid. Mr. BrOimell has
not played this game. Mr. Brolmell has been UP front and honest
in his dealing with you and his tenants. He has just rerented
his units for one (1) year despite the obvious advantages to
do otherwise. It troubles me deeply that a posture has been
taken that rewards those who circumvent the ordinance and
penalizes those who are up front with the City and good to
their tenants.
Mr. Richard Grice
October 20, 1978
Page Two
Our proposal for the Brownell condominiumization will
ensure two (2) units remaining unchanged for five (5) years
and two (2) units unchanged for one (1) year. The names of the
tenants who have rented from Mr. Brownell are Richard and
Marcia Gasshorn, who own their own business in town; the other
tenants are Michael Chaney and Gary and Laura Larson. Again,
under 11r. Brownell's proposed condominiumization, there will,
in effect, be no tenant displacement. In fact, any reduction
on the low- and moderate-income housing market is speculative
because there are no immediate plans of selling any of the
units. The rent in the restricted unit will be maintained
at the five-hundred-dollar ($500.00) level, which is what the
current rent is, and will be increased based upon the increases
that are adopted by the City Council for low- and middle-income
employee units.
I feel it would be most unjust to deny Mr. Brownell's
condominiumization. He has not sought to displace tenants
before his attempted condominiumization. He has been up
front and honest with you in his approach and dealings. I
realize that the condominiumization Ordinance 53 has not worked
and you are seeking new methods for solving the problem;
but the new stringent application should not be applied to
Mr. Brownell. I am not aware of a single condominiumization
that was turned down under Ordinance 53, and I do not feel
that Mr. Brownell's application should be denied.
If you have any questions on this matter, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~
Gideon Kaufman
GK ch
."~--""""-"''''-^'''-'''--~''<~-'-'--
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
~at~
BOX 10001
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81 a 1 1
(303) 9215-81 aa
October 24, 1978
Mr. Richard Grice
Planning Office
City of Aspen
105 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Brownell Condominiumization
Dear Richard,
I am writing this letter to you to elaborate upon my
proposals concerning the Brownell condominiumization spelled
out in my October 20, 1978, letter. The Brownell condomin-
iumization concerns two (2) duplexes or four (4) separate
rental units. Under our proposed condominiumization, two (2)
of the four (4) units will effectively remain unchanged for
at least five (S) years. They will not be sold, and their
rents will be controlled. Mr. Brownell resides in one (1)
of the units and will continue to do so. The second unit
will be restricted both as to sale and rental for the next
five (5) years. The base rent will be five hundred dollars
($SOO.OO), and its increases will be based upon the levels
adopted by the City Council for low, middle and moderate
income employee units. The remaining two (2) units were
rerented this month for one (1) year. There will, therefore,
be no change in those two (2) units for at least one (1) year.
We are not sure at this point what will be done with them at
the end of the year, but we can guarantee that for one (1)
year there will be no change in the rent or renters.
Mr. Richard Grice
October 24, 1978
Page Two
~;
,
I hope this spells out sufficiently our plans for
these units. You can construe this letter as the proposal
that we will adhere to in the event our condominiumizations
are approved.
Very truly yours,
~~'
Gideon Kaufman
GK ch
,,"",
-""'......
"
'. ..~
506 E, MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P
I
T
K
I
N
MI!iQB.A!!'QQM
c
o
U
N
T
Y
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Aspen City Council
Mark A. Danielsen, Housing Director
October 30, 1978
Brownell Subdivision Exemption
The original application stated that Mr. Brownell
was not going to sell any of the units, for a period of
18 months. The current application has been amended
to commit to a 12 month period for two of the units
and a 5 year period for one of the units, with Mr.
Brownell to continue to live in the fourth unit (he
is willing to commit to a 5 year period for his own
unit) .
Though most of the tenants could not be reached,
it is noted that at least one 2 bedroom unit is
occupied by four people. It can also be reasonably
assured that after the 12 month period the two' units
would be sold, creating a more than minimal displace-
ment of tenall~~~u ~ more acceptable means to ensure
minimal tenaH'C!Y"V7'~'iJld be to require that 3 of the
four units have the no sale commitment of 5 years
made, the fourth unit being Mr. Brownell's personal
resirence.
Four of the tenants work for Aspen Studio, two
more own their own business, and the other two tenants'
occupation is unknown.
.-----.--'.
,/
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Brownell Duplexes - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: November 2, 1978
In your packet you will find the original letter requesting sub-
division exemption and a couple of additional letters which were
requested by the Planning Office for clarification of the applica-
tion's compliance with Ordinance *53. The request is to condo-
miniumize two duplexes which are located on lot 1 and lot 3,
Brownell subdivision. Lot I of the Brownell subdivision is zoned
R-15 and lot 3 is zoned R-6. Due to the fact that this applica-
tion was in process at the time of the moratorium, it needs to
be reviewed under the criteria of Ordinance #53.
The application was referred to the City Engineering Department
which comments as follows: "the engineering department has just
recently reviewed the amended plat and PUD for the Brownell Sub-
division, however, there is one item which we would like to see
implemented as a condition of approval for this subdivision ex-
emption. That condition would be to have the fence which is
erected approximately 20 feet into the right-of-way of Gibson Ave.
moved back to the property line on lot 3. This request was not
made at the earlier plat amendment reviews since the amendments
dealt primarily with lots I and 2 and not lot 3. The fence as
constructed creates a very tight turn on Gibson ana"l'ark"'Avenues,
and obstructs accesS by the fire department to a fire hygra.I"l:t:,:."
The application and additional letters of clarification regarding
Ordinance #53 were referred to the Housing Director whose comments
are attached. The applicant is attempting to illustrate minimum
,tenant displacement by committing one of the three rental units
'to the PMH guidelines for a period of five years and by signing
new one year leases recently, which hold the other two rental
units in their present state for a period of one year. Mark,
however, does not feel that this represents minimum tenant dis-
placement and suggests that a PMH commitment on all three of the
rental units for a period of five years would be more appropriate.
It appears to be up to P&Z and/or City Council to negotiate a
compromise.
rh
.,...."
......
p""
""- ,~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
RICHARD GRICE
PLANNING
DAVE ELLIS ~
ENGINEERING d7L-
'TO:
DATE:
August 22, 1978
HE:
Subdivision Exemption Request -
Lot 3, Brownell Subdivision
The engineering department just recently reviewed the
amended plat and PUD for the Brownell Subdivision; however, there
is one item which we would like to see implemented as a condi-
tion of approval for this subdivision exemption. That condition
would be to have the fence which is erected approximately twenty
feet into the right-of-way of Gibson Avenue moved back to the
property line on Lot 3. This request was not made at the earlier
plat amendment review since the amendments dealt primarily with
Lots 1 and 2 and not Lot 3. The fence as constructed creates a
very tight turn on Gibson and Park Avenues, and also obstructs
access by the Fire Department to a fire hydrant.
jk
cc: Gideon Kaufman
,'- ,~~.........,..---------"---,,-.-,-,-
.>~'-""",
~~"..,/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Brownell Duplexes - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: September 14, 1978
The attached application and letter request exemption from the definition
of subdivision for the purpose of condominiumization of two duplexes which
are located on lot_ 1 and lot_ 3, Brownell Subdivision. Lot 1 of the
Brownell subdivision is zoned R-15 and Lot 3 is zoned R-6.
The application was referred to the City Engineering Department which comments
as follows: "The Engineering Department just recently reviewed the amended
plat and PUD for the Brownel'l subdivision submission, however, there is one
item which we would like to see implemented as a condition of approval for
this subdivision exemption. That condition would be to have the fence which
is erected approximately twenty feet into the right-of-way of Gibson Avenue
moved back to the property line on lot 3. This request was not made at the
earlier plat amendment reviews since the amendments dealt primarily with lots
1 and 2 and not lot 3. The fence as constructed creates a very tight turn on
Gibson and Park Avenues, and also obstructs access by the Fire Oepartment
to a fire hydrant.
This application was referred to the Housing Director, but as of the time of
this writing, we have no comment. The application indicates that the owner
occupies one of the two units located on lot 1 and has done so for the past
seven years and will continue to do so. The other unit on lot 1 is occupied
by a tenant who has also been there for a number of years and plans to remain
in residence. Mr. Gideon Kaufman's letter of July 18, 1978, indicates that
Mr. Brownell is willing to give the tenant located in the unit on lot 1
a right-of-first-refusal. No tenant information whatsoever has been supplied
with regard to the duplex located on lot 3. I must assume that the tenants
living in this duplex are low and moderate income individuals. Therefore,
with respect to the duplex on lot 3, the applicant has not demonstrated that
approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing.
The Planning Office recommends denial of this subdivision exemption requests.
sr
,
....
,.,,''',
'",/
....'"""-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves ,
~
,lllItI.. e. r.M',rtIl"H~..." l. to'
ORDINANCE NO. 53
(Series of 1977)
.
,AN ORDINANCE AMENDD1G CHAPTER 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY THE ADDITION OF A
NElv SECTION 20-22 1'l1lICIl SECTION IMPOSES TilE
FOLLOIVING REQUIREMENTS IvHEN APPLICATION IS M1\.DE
FOR SUDDIVISION OF A TRACT OF LAND TO DE USED
FOR CONDOtllNIUMS: (1) EXISTING TENANTS MUS'l' DE
GIVEN 90-DAY EXCLUSIVE NON-ASSIGNADLE RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL TO PURCHASE THEIR UNITS; (2) ALL
UNITS MUST BE RESTRICTED TO SIX (6) MONTH MINIMUM
LEASES; AND (3) THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE
THAT APPROVAL WILL NOT REDUCE THE SUPPLY OF LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
'.
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend Chapter ,20 of
the Aspen Municipal Code by the addition of Section 20-22, and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to add said section for
the benefit of the City bf Aspen,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN"COLORADO:
, ' Section 1
That Chapter 20 of the ~sp~n Muniripal Code is hereby
amended by the addition of Section 20-22 wtich reads as follows:
Sec. 20-22 Condoniniunization
:n addition to all other requirenents inposed in this
Chapter, when application is nade for subdivision of a
tract of land to be used for condoniniums, ~he applicant
must conply with the following requirements:
(a) Existing tenants shall be given written notice
when their unit is offered for sale, ~hich notice
shall specify the sale price. Zach tenant shall
Ilon-"ssin-nilhle
have a gO-day/option to purchase their unit at
this preliminary market value. In addition,
each tenant shall have a 90-dav exclusive non-
, -
assignable right of first refusal to purchase
I--
/"'"......
.",,...;
..-','....
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
TOO Leaves .
~
,nllM" t". Il'lr'~fl I. II. 1\ I. 1".'1.
their unit which shall commence when a bona 'fide
offer is made "by a third person, and accepted by
the owner. In the event that such offer is made
while the 90-day option is still in effect, the
.
tenant may purchase the unit for the amount of
the initial sales price or the amount of the
bona fide offer, whichever is less.
~
(b) All units shall be restricted to six (6) month
minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter
tenancies per year, and
(c) The applicant shall de~onstrate that approval
will not reduce the supply of low and moderate
income housing. Such de~onstration shall be made
at the tiine of initial consideration by p&Z.
=vidence relating to the following criteria
"
shall be considered in making this determination:
(1) Evidence that illustrates there will be
ninimal tenant displacement as a result
of ~he conversion.
(2) Evidence that the condomini~ units will
be affordable by persons of noderate income,
(3) Evidence that tenants who do not wish to
exercise their option or right of first
refusal are provided at least 180 days
after final council approval or when their
unit is sold to a third person, whichever
date is later, in which to locate other
housing.
(4) Evidence that the prospective purchaser
-2-
'-
,....,
'-"
r""',
,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
'100 Leaves
'00I11~' C. '.HlJrr.HI II. II. It l. I.IJ.
is an employer or a group of employc~s
who intends to rent the unit(s) to its
employees.
Section 2
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance
"
which can be given effect without the invalid provision or appli-
cation, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be severable.
Section 3
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on
A-~ /L
, 1977, at 1: :;0 P .:i. in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ A~D ORDERED published as provided by law
by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its
regular meeting held
~~
at the City of Aspen on the :(,Jl' day of
~ ~
, 1977 ..,/ J/-' ~
/~,_ " ~~~-r
y ,
III
/':;'.. ,
... l,....'\.-
-'
/
ATTEST:
[-"< ,." /. ) f' / /, .)
:".t! >: , (/ll. -.' ..r:. t'l' ,',_ -:7:: j
Kat~lryn Sf Hauter
City Clerk
FINi\LtY ado?ted,
.- )
K'
.', 1. ~ . .
,-<, ,(.< /.L-rl.i l,'
d d />"),./{ , f
passe and approve on the <....:.- uay 0'
, -:'-977.
.,
)
ATTEST:
/
. /
J- ",-/
.-' ---
C --j-{~ "
Stacy s,andley
l1ayor U
-
~," /
II~ /
/2:, "
...'
/cri..-4^=-~.:.+-_~( ~<,-7c'J
Kathryn :j) . ,allH~r '
City Clerk ~1-
'.
""~ ,
~-"" ."'........
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Dave Ellis, City Engineer
Mark Danielsen, Housing Director
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Brownell Subdivision Exemption
DATE: August 2, 1978
The last City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in the month of August
will be held on August 15. If at all possible, I would like to have this
item on the agenda at that meeting. But, in order to do so, I'm going to
have to have your comments by August 9. If you find that this request
creates a hardship, let me know and we will schedule it for some time in
Septemeber.
L"'
-'..."
~l-
1;:)(
,,,.,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Brownell Duplexes - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: November 21, 1978
In your packet you will find the original letter requesting subdivision
exemption and a couple of additional letters which were requested by
the Planning Office for clarification of the application's compliance
with Ordinance #53. The request is to condominiumize two duplexes which
are located on lot 1 and lot 3, Brownell subdivision. Lot 1 of the
Brownell subdivision is zoned R-15 and lot 3 is zoned R-6. Due to the
fact that this application was in process at the time of the moratorium,
it needs to be reviewed under the criteria of Ordinance #53.
The application was referred to the City Engineering Department which
comments as follows: "the engineering department has just recently
reviewed the amended plat and PUD for the Brownell Subdivision, how-
ever, there is one item which we would like to see implemented as a
condition of approval for this subdivision exemption. That condition
would be to have the fence which is errected approximately 20 feet in-
to the right-of-way of Gibson Ave. moved back to the property line on
lot 3. This request was not made at the earlier plat amendment re-
views since the amendments dealt primarily with lots 1 and 2 and not
lot 3. The fence as constructed creates a very tight turn on Gibson
and Park Avenues, and obstructs access by the fire department to a
fi re hydrant."
The application and additional letters of clarification regarding
Ordinance #53 were referred to the Housing Director whose comments
are attached. The applicant is attempting to illustrate minimum ten-
ant displacement by committing two of the four units (one of which
is owner occupied) to the PMH guidelines for a period of five years
and by signing new one year leases recently, which hold the other two
rental units in their present state for a period of one year. Mark,
however, does not feel that this represents minimum tenant displace-
ment and suggests that a PMH commitment on all three of the rental
units for a period of five years would be more appropriate.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at their
regular meeting on November 7 and recommended you approve the exemption
subject to the preparation of an agreement satisfactory to the City
Attorney restricting two units to current rents plus the annual PMH
escalation for a period of five years and prohibiting the sale of these
two units for five years.
In view of the considerable difficulty we have experienced in adminis-
ering Ordinance #53 evenly and fairly, the Planning Office recommends
your approval of the compromise described by the P&Z.
sr
',c
"'.-......
,..""
APPLICATION FOR EXE~WTION
FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of LOIS BROHNELL and
RICHARD BROWNELL (hereinafter referred to as applicants)
under Section 20-l9(a) of the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision
Regulations, for an exemption from the defjnition of the
term "Subdivision" with respect to the real property described as:
Lot 1 & Lot 3, Brownell Subdivision,
Pitkin County, Colorado
It is submitted that an exemption in the case would be appropriate.
The application involves existing duplexs. A subdivision
of lots with duplexs on it creates conditions whereby strict
compliance with subdivision regulations would deprive the
applicants of the reasonable use of their land. The owner will
continue to live in one unit. There will not be any increase
in the land use impact of the property. An exemption in this
case will not conflict with the intent and purpose of the sub-
division regulations whioh are directed to assist the orderly,
efficient, and integrated development of the City of Aspen, to
insure the proper distribution of population, to coordinate
the need for public services, and to encourage well-planned
subdivision.
The granting of this application will not undermine the
intent of the subdivision regulations as it is clearly within
the area intended for exemption under 20-19. The buildings
are already in existence, and there will be no change in density
which is presently in line with the desired population density
for the property.
The applicants would appreciate your consideration of this
application at your next regular meeting.
Very truly yours,
~Ll~
Gideon I.I~
Attorney for Lois Brownell and
Richard Brownell, Applicants
DATED this 28th day of June, 1978