The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.res.095.2010�._._ APPR�VED BY ��ooK, �Bj¢�Q/�r¢,,�TN�'ii9GL5 RESOLUTI4N �l��az # D 9�— p�Q ��. -�. FOi2 ASSESSQRS.AND COUNT'C COMMISSIONERS U5E {?1VLY — (SecBon II) qr �pn IV musY lur complsGrd) C: very petition tor abatemeni or refi;nA filetl pursuant to aedion 39-10-114 sh�ii be qctetl upon pu;su��tt ta the provisions oiihis secti�an bythe hvard ot co�miy commis;;ioners pr the assessor, as app�opriat�, within siz montps o19he tlate af fiting such petition, § 39-1-113{t,7), C.f2;S. section �u: Written Mutual Agreemen# nf Assessor and Pefitioner j4niy Tar abatoments up to 31,OOp) The comm+ssioners oi County authorize the ass�ssor by Resalution Na. to r�visw netitions for aba#ement or re und and to settle by written mutual agreement any such petition or�`— abatement ar refund in �n amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel, or Eot of tand or per schedule of personal property, in accordance with § 39-1-113(1,5), C.R.S. The assessor and petifioner mutualiy agree to the values and tax abatemenUrefund of: 7ax Year Actual As�gssad T� Orlginal Tax Yaar ku I �,�,,sa.r�sg,� Tax CorrocYed ,.�..�.,,,,�.�,,.:� --......—___.. - -..� �.:...... � ANateiRofund Mote: The rotal ,ax ar.i�urrt does not h�Gude accruF� irdc:rest, penaities, a�xl fees a5spciated with (�te andJdr delinqurmt tax payments, it applicab'e. Piease contaM 1he county treasurCr tor tull p�yment infnrmalion. Petitionar's Sfgnatura Oata Assnsssor's ar pepttty AssassoPS Signature � Date section �v: Decision of the Caunty Commissioners {Aqust be c�m iot�i if Sectio� IN doos npt appty} YVHEREAS, The County Commission�;rs of —,��,y�-.�.. County, State oP Colorado, at a duly and lawfuily cailed regula �meeting held on __�__l�i._L, at v✓hich meeting there were present the fnliowing members: � � , Me�h Day Y�ar /) A I n ` A / /) . � � s . . of such meetiha and af said County and Assessor petitioner�' ��y �0 !1 D � � present having been given td the t� r and the Assessor � —� einc� preseni noi present) and presenfJ, and WHEREAS, The said Co�inty Commissicaners have carefully coni3deree(y� y�'y„� � n and are fuily advised in rcla6on thereto, NOW BE ti i2E5ULVED: That th ��-aota�lree pnth the recommendafion of the assessor and the petition be (approved approved in ��} r c N�tr� an aua2emenUrefund as follouvs: � _�� k0 �' l°14.(�t� Year Ass�ssed �lalue Taxes ApatelRafurtd Y ar w Assessed Value � 7axes tlbate/Reiurid XChairp rson� Bo of County ,ommissfana Slgn tua rta �� Cnunty Clerk and Ex-oificio Cisrk of the Board f�ounty Cammissio in n or the afor�m ntioned cou�ty, do hercby certify that the above and foregoing ord is tru3y copied fr ( record of the proceedings of the Board of Coun#y Commissioners. ��.,... EN WiTN SS„11�iEREOF, I hpa her nto set my hand and affixed the seal of s` County 'Q,� • �,J, tn�5 d�y o� C.. ��?,�f0 , ,�t :, SE� Month Year p Cou Cierk` ��'$.. o tJOte: AUatements gmater than 5i3OU0 pc�r sr.hedule, pei year, must ba subm in duplic,aie to the ProWedy Tax Administrator far tew , OL �� sect3on v: Action of the Property Tax Administrator (far all ahatsemants greatar than;9,OQ0) 7he action of fha 8oard of County Commissianers, relative to the within petition, is hereby ❑ Approv�d ❑ Approved in part $ ❑ Denied #or the foltpwing reason(s): :�:cxetary's Siqnature Pra�erty Tax 1Wministrator's Siqnaturo Da?c ��'�� L :* . . �•,d �- \ PETITION Ff'�R �Ft1,7F11AFNT CfR RFFIINi'} AF TdXF.S County: �1�� i r Secfipn i: Petitioner, please camptete 3ectian I onfy. Oate: ��' 3� v"" / Moni17 pay Ye�r Petition�r's Name: ,,1,,,J S � Petitioner s Mai6ng Address: , Go� E.._.�� .. �.. Gfty or TOwn SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER{Sj �� f a�0 �- Dato Received {Uce Assesso�'s oe Commissioners' fJate Stamp) �. 5� � I s St, «�k K��rt ��tC�/��: �t"r�, cv � /G// S�ate Zip Code PRO�,EC��RE S R� F, N r uSNR(P�O�OF �OPERTY > bor� Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for praperty tax year(s) a�7 and �� are incorrect fqr the foliowing reasons: (Briefly descnbe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect vatue or tax. Attach addifit�nal shee:ts if n�cessary.} �c �'�'c�� e �}cr Petitioner's estimaYe of value: g"ti 5��. Oo0 {. ac�n�� nd g�,�00, o0o t a.QOP ) Value Year V�lire Yrar PetiCic�ner requests an abatQment ar refund of the appropriate taxes. i declare, under penal#y of per}ury in the second degree, that this petition, togeiher with any accompanying exhibiYs or stat�ments, has been prepared or �xamined by me, and to the best af my knowledge, information and belieP, is tnae, correc#, end complete. DayFime Phone Number Petitionsr`s 3ignetum By �� „� �/ '' Daytime Phone Numb�r ��7 ) / ��' ` �� AqenYa S7gnaWre' `Lotter o( a�ency must be atiached wh�n p�etition is submittEaa�J �y an age�rt, kf the board of caunty commissianors, pursuant to section 39-10-114(1), or the property Sax adrninistrator, pursuant to section 39-2-116, deniQS the petiYion for refund ar abatement of taxes in whole or in paK, the petitioner may appeal to th� board of assessment appeats pursuant tn the provisions of section 39-2-125 within thirty days of #he entry of any such decisian, § 39-10-114.5(1�, C.R.S. Sectian �r. Assessnr's Recommendatian (Far Assessor's Use 6niy) Ta�c Yoar � � 7ax Ysar ual snssad Tax Act�al As as T�x Original .��,� � y J_��__I�_lS-ZQ ____,_ CorrocWd � l�Y ��Q., � S �O� .� . . «.,�...� AbatelRAfund �� I.��th �"1�'Q� _ ❑ Assessar recommen+is approval as outlined above. No protest was �led for the year{sj; or (If a pratost was filod, as cach �opy ot tho NOD.j � Assessar recammends denia! fior the foliowing reasnrr{s): S(� Q G+ ZR Assasso s or onutv soPS Sionature RECEIVED DEC 3 �0 2� �ww0 ��•`8 �° S� ASPEN OFFICE 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925-1936 Facsimile (970) 925-3008 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Centre 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 947-1936 Facsimile (970) 947-1937 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. BY HAND DELIVERY Pitkin County Assessor 506 East Main Street, #202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www. garfieldhecht.com December 30, 2009 AVON OFFICE 0070 Benchmark Road Post Office Box 5450 Avon, Colorado 81620 Telephone (970) 949-0707 Facsimile (970) 949-1810 BASALT OFFICE River View Plaza 100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 220 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Telephone (970) 927-1936 Facsimile (970) 927-1939 Gregory S. Gordon Aspen Office ggordon@garfieldh ech t. com RE: Abatement Request - Account Nos. R012602 (Lot "L, Sickels Subdivision) (the "Property") Dear Mr. Isaac: We repres�nt ihe owner ("O�,-;��er�'} oi� lhe above refe�enced Property. Owner has a pending appeal f�r the 2009 assess�d valuatio��, and als�, seeks an abatement far tax years 2007 and 2u0�. A Petition for Abateme�t or Refund of Taxes (the "Abatement Pe±itiori"j is attached. This letter is part of �he Abatement r�rt�tion. In 2007-20U8, the Property v��as valtzed at 8;400,0��().f'U. This valuatio;z sY�ou?d have been based �n comparable ,ales from z(?0-�-2�06. In 2005, unfortunately, there was a death in O��ner's family, and an a��praisal in connectio�. with estate issues was, procured. A copy of that appraisal is attached and ir�cor}�orated herein �s Exhibit ``A". The apprais�l, issued by loc:al appraiser Betsy Krizmani;;i�, contains an analvsis �f� the Property value using the market approach and sales a�+proach. Ms. Kr?zmanich's conclasion using cumparable sales is that the Pr�pert.,� w�as then worth �etween $4,56�,Q00.!)(� � $S,71i0,000.00. k'E�tit�or��,r alsa resF�ectfully requtsts that you .:.�?nsider � pendtrr� appeu! concerning an act�vit}� erv�lope c�n the Fro�ert�, <� ruirciing envelope for the Yre}pert.- was estaLlisl�ed in 198i, when the �ickels �ubdivisi�n w•as approved. `That buildin�•: env�lope 'ss sho�n c�n the Sickels Subdivisi��u �'lat rc;c�rde�� it� Plat Bnok 19 at Page 6Q (a copy �f which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"). Vz�zt.�d right� w>s�,�ciat�.� with that building er�velope exp�r�d, howe��er� �3�caus�:. ��n��n,� atr:�:r tninbs, the ori�ir�xl �t�ildin� envelnpe includes slopes greater that 30°%, co�ist�action wit:�i,:: t'�,at ori�it�al er�v�i��e may no longer by viable Petitioner theref�re appli�d ior ��n .4cri�•zty Envelope and Site Plan Approval, and a Minor Plat Amendmeni. The r.eigiibnri�=�; p�°c�perty owtier obje�.ted �.o that application, and has subsequ�ntly� appealed a dei�rzr_��.ation. A co�� c�f a rec��i � Printed on recycled paper �� GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Decemb�r 30, 2009 Page 2 ��f"2 November 19, 2009, memorandum summarizing the status of the appeal is attached as Exhibit "C". Therefore, the Property does not curren#?� ?�ave an approved activity envelope; a factor that should be considered botii iui t��e pending 2009 appeal, and also for the Abatement Petition. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned to discuss these matters. Thank you. Very tru yours, �ii �% Gregory S. Gc�rdon. Enclosures 504684_I DOC � Printed on recycled paper �� •� � � uy U'L:�4p ��i }711512009 ■ ■ � ■ ■ ■■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ tiesanetn �nooK 13:36 Mr. Tom Isaac Pitkin Cuunty Assessor 506 L-. Main Stree;, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81G11 �/UyLVJ'+JU FJ. � (FAX� P.00410�4 Re: Proprrty� Tux Appeuf for Pa�•rel(�) Accaun! Numbers RUU3707 arid RU126U2 Dear N1r. Isaac: TE�e undersigned, �,��J'Q�� , �� ti'�lio is ttie ownerJmanager/trt�sfee of'Assessor's Paccel Account Nwnber(s) ROU5707 and R012G02, hereb}� authorizes Gar#ield & Hec��, P.C. to subnut the a[[ached °ea1 property ta,Y appe�al and to act as o�vner's aullioiized representative in all matters related to that review and appeai before the Assessor and,�or the Counry Boacd of Equalizafion. Please pi•ovide cupies uf �uly and all �.zotices or doc�ume�its related lo [he appeal Cu [he fullowin�: Gre�uiy S. C`iurdon; Esq. 601 East T-�yman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phc�ne: (97U) 925-193b Far: (470) 925-3005 454925-1 Sincerely, I ��IS� �� %'� � Date: � _ . ��f �� APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: TBD WAloughhy Way S'ickels Subdivision Lot 2 Aspen, Colorado FOR: Gbbs Irnestment 2101 Park Center Drive Orlendo, FL 32635 � AS 0�: Odober 3, 2005 sY: Betsy Kr¢manic�i, SRA THE ASPEN APPRAISAL GROUP, LTD 30� Eest Hyman Avatwe Aspen, Colorado 81611 Form GA3 —'WinTQTAI' apprais� software by a la mode, inc. — t-800-ALAMODE �3 Ms. Betsy Krizmanich, SRA THE ASPEN APPRAISAL GROUP, LTD 300 East Hyman Avenue Aspe�, Colorado 91811 January 4, 2008 Gibbsinvestments 2701 Park Center Drive, Suke 210 Orlando, FL 32835 Ra: Property: Sickels Subdivfaon lot 2 Aspen, CO 81611 Owner. Pldtin Group Investmerd File No.: 22395 Dear Mr. Gibbs: At your request, I personaily ir�spected the subject property fw the purpose of providing my opinion of its Market Value (most probabie selling price). This valuaUon is e"Compiete, Summery Appnisal Report" Wh�e I have uUl¢ed the FNMA Form as part of my report, my appra'rsai is not compleb without the accompanying narrative commer�, which include pettinerK coritir►gerR and Gmi6ng conditlwis. Please refer to the Scope of the Appraisal for addfional caMingent and limitinp conditions. The anaysis, opinions, and condusior�.s stated in Uas report were prepared in axordance with the Standards and Reporting Requiremer�ts of the Urdfortn Standards of Professional Appraisal Practce (USPAP), the Appraisai institute, Oifice of Cre Comptroller of Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, and Finau�clal IrutihAions Refortn, Racovary and Enforcement Act of 1988 (FIRREA). This Appraisal Report has been prepared for the exclusive benefit of the above me�oned clier�. My p�iy who uses a reBes upon any IMormatlon in this report, wftliouc the preparers w�itten conserrt, does so at hfslher own risK I inspected ihe subject property on January 4, 2006. I have been askad to appralse it" as is" as ot the retrospective date of value of October 3, 2005 tor the seffiemotrt of ttie Robert P. Shook Estate. A rotrospactive velue opmwn opinion of value that is 6key to have applied as of a spedfied historie date." (Dictio�ary aF Real Estate Apprasal, Fourth EdRion, 2002). At the time of my inspection thera was a water Ieak in the basement that had been caused by a leaky pipe leading to water heater, Tha pipe was not leaking � of the date of value. With ihe exception of tlis item, I have assumed that tha home was in essontiaUy the same conc5tion as of the date ot value. 71�e walus includes real estate commission and is reflectve of a cash or cash-effoctive transaction. The defini�on of Market Value can be found in the body o} tNs repoR That delinitlon speciffes a value based upon a reasonable e�osure time. I estimate an expostxe time for the wbject properiy, if marketed at a price near the appraised value of approbmately 6 to 12 morrths. This is wifhin normel parameters for the market in this ptice category. Atteched is my report containing the supporting market data and e�diibits f�om which, in part, I have based my opinio�. If I can be of any further assistance in the irrterpretation or app6caUon of the findings in tttis repwt, piease do not hesiteto to calL Thank you for Uus opportunily to be of service. Sincerely, c r f ° _-'7 �.' ,--------�' Betsy Krizmanich, SftA (Aq CaNfied Cenerai Appraiser CG#01313336 IU Borrower Pidci� Groue Investmerrt Casus Tract P�rtkin 4 Map Reteret�ee Roperiy Address 7'BD WiUoughbv WaY Cily AsDen Courdy PRkin $iaRe CO Z� Code, Legal DescripUon Sickels Subdnision Lot 2 Sab Price S Na pate of Sab Na Loan Tarm Na yrs, properqr Rigtds pppr�ised ke � Leasetpld pe Mirdmis Actwl Real Est�e Ta�s S 7• 170.30 (yr) Loan charpes to be paid by seUer S Na � sales co�sspns nfa LendedCtle�t Gibbs Investment qddress 210'I Park Ce�ter Otive Suite 210 OAando FL 32835 Occupan[ Na Apprafsor Betsy Krizmanich, SRA llstru�Upr�s to Appniser Locadion Q9 Urban U Suburbart LI Rwal BuiR Up � Over 75X ❑ 259G to 759G ❑ Unda� 2596 GrowTh RaDe ❑ FuUy Da. ❑ Rapid � 5teady ❑ Sbw Proparty Vahns � Increashg ❑ Stabk ❑ Oacfnirg DanandiSUPFN � s►arlage ❑ In sapnce ❑ orers�PPH Markding Time ❑ Unda 3 Mos. ❑ 46 Mos. (� Ova 8 Mos. Present Land Use 1009G 1 Fartdly _% 2-4 Family _7. Apts. 96 Condo % Comrrr.�cial %Industrial %Vacanl 9G Gharp�e In Presait Land Use � dm ukey p ukery �•� Taian� race �*� (1fran To Preaominata occ�r Q9 awner ❑ Te�ra 5 x Vaca�d SingN Famiy Pdce Ruge = 2.5 to j 20+M Predwni�p�d Value � 5-10M Singb Fam�y Age New yrs. to 40 yrs, predpmi�ntAye 10-20 yrs. EmPbYma� Stab�►Y CanveNaioem Empbymwd Cwaer�erce m 5hoppig Comtatiereeto Schods Adequxy af Pub6c Tru�sportation Recroational facif�s Adequa�.y of Utl6tles P�oPertl� Co�a�bi�p Ptotd:tlon itom DetrimeMal Cot�diuotl9 Po6a and Fre ProkcGon Genenl Apparanca d Properties MP�m Market Commentss includhg those tadors, favorabk or uNavorabk, a�ixtlng rt�arketablfdY (aG• P�� P�, schools, riew, ►5 ■ ■ ■ ►Z� ■ ■ ■ ►Z� ■ ■ ■ ►Z� ■ ■ ■ ►�� ■ ■ ■ ►�� ■ ■ ■ ►�� ■ ■ ■ ►:� ■ ■ ■ ►:< ■ ■ ■ ►�I ■ ■ ■ ►�� ■ ■ ■ ►�1 � � � Dimansions RouahH rectanaular = 1.62 Sq. R or Aaes ❑ Comer LW ZoNrq classifrcalbn R-30 (Pitkn Cou�ril Prese�d Im{uovaneNs � do ❑ do not ca(am to mmng regulalias Hiphest and best use � Presert use Otl�er s' PWdc Olher (Desafbe) OFF Sf1E OdPROVEMEMS Topo Level to Slopinu Elx. � Hotv Cross Street pccess ❑ p�5c � Prir�e 53ze TYpical of neis�bothood 6as � Kinder Moman Su�txe Asehalt/Grevei Shape Rouphh� Rectanauler Wader � WeA Mairr�e►ranxx ❑ Pobic � Priv�e Yrow Excellent San. Sewu � Citv ❑ Slorm Sexrer ❑ Cwb�6idla Drafiape Appears adequate � Undetqmund Ebct. 8 TeL Sidewak Stral b tAe p�op�ry {oo�ted in a NUD WentNkd Spee�l Fkod Hand A�a? ❑ No � Cortvnents (hrorede a unfaraade IncWding ary �ppxmt adrerse easanrms, mcroxMbms, a dha �Orau cond�ons): No adverse easemeMs or encroachmerKs th iAe unda�pned hu rectted tluee ncad sales of propertles most slrtdlu and pradm�te to wbl� md has eo�ed tl�ae In tlie mukd uuysix TAe daaiDtlon (nckides � do9u a�usbsuix rellectlrp market reac6on N Case ihms of dgnfAaM vui�mi belween the s�ject �nd comp�r�de propatla. If � slpntAwi ibm M Ihe conp�r�bk propedy is supaior to or more i�ronble tl�n Ihe wbject properry, a mNus (-) �d�usonad is rt�de tl�us raduc�y the Indipted r�lue ot wD�a# If ��pnifiwrt 1em in tlie cairyWrebte Is IMaria to a leu faraabk tlwn riie subjxt propaly, a pda (+) �justrnert is made tlps inemasirg tAe ind�ca2ed vaqie of the s�jxL Addiess TBD Wipouphby Way Sickels Subdivision Lot Pro m to S ect Saks Prke 'ce Data S rce Ins !PR Dah of Sab end DESCRIP Terro Adjiatrne� O�tober 3 i ocatlon Ve Good S Ve Good Sin 1.62 aues FAR 6 000 SF + T r Levei to sl S har ' c Good Saks or Rnancing r✓a Con�essions d Indicated Value of SubJed Cwnrtiards on Market Data: See ati CommerAs and Cond'�Gons of Appraisak Final Rxonciliadon: See attached TBD Pitldn Way Conventional 144 Magnfioo Road Cash sele 1 ESiiMA7E THE MARI(kT YAtOE, Ai OEFIME0. � WaIECT PpDPERi1 Af OF Odobel 3 2 r `•� x�. 7 r _.--a �. _. . Betsv Knzmanich, SRA CCq01313336 ❑ Did Ap�raiserls) Revkw Apprafser (rf aPP�abb) ,�� . ,.. . ._ AsPen Appra�a! Group Form LND —"WinTdTAI• aoDraisal software M a la mode. irc. —.1-eoaaLaMmF 107 Wilouphby Way Cash i �D bE;3 _4.900,000 ` ; � ❑ Did Not PhYskaBy Inspxt propqty bS ccoaa AspaiAppa�al6roup Fonn LND.(AC} --- "W'�nTOTAL' apprafsal sonware 6y a la mode, inc. —1-BOO�AlAM00E �b Farm HM —'WhiTOTAI' aPpraisal soflwue by a q mode. inc. —1-8U0-AlAMOUE �.-� Legal Descri�ption: T'he subject property is a vacant lot on Willoughby Way and has not yet been assigned a street address. It is legally described as: Sickels Subdivision Lot �-� Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Taz Information: �tate Tax Identification No.: 2735-013-04-002 Assessor's Parcel No.: O]-12602 Tax District: 1-AFS Mill Levy (20041: $26.303 per $1000 ofassessed value Assessor's "Actual" Value 2004): $4,100,000 Assessed Valu�20041: $ 326,360 2004 Taxes (due & �ayable in 20051: $8.584.25 The subject was valued by the Assessor for the 2004 tax year as of June 30, 2002 levels of value at $4,100,000. As the subject is a vacant piece of land, it would typically be taxed based on the vacant land assessed valuation rate of 29%. However, the owner also has title to the adjacern lot which is improved with a single-family home. It is currently taxed along with this adjacent parcel at the assessed valuation rate for improved property at 7.96%. Discussions with the Assessor's Offiee indicate that should the lot sell, it would be taxed at the vacant land rate of 29'/0. Neighborhood Data: Boundaries for the subject neighborhood are considered to be the same as for the City of Aspeq Colorado, the world famous destination ski resort known for its culturdl atrnosphere as well as world class slding. The Red Moumain/Pitkin Green neighborhood in general is well established and is nearly 100% built up with single family homes ranging in value from approximately $2,500,000 (now outdated single family homes ripe for razing) to values of over $20,000,000. Most homes are between 10 and 20 years of age aithough there are some areas of older homes as well. New homes are continually being developed on vacant sites or redevelopment of lots with outdated houses. Most new homes in the neighborhood are in the $'7,000,000 to $12,000,000+ price range. The appeal ofthe neighborhood is excellent, and it has a strong draw to both tourist second homebuyers and upper-income local residents. Commandi.ng views and the quality of homes in the area are the principal features. The Pitldn Green neighborhood is closer to Aspen at the base of Red Mountain. It consists of the Pitkin Green Subdivision, Sunny Acres, Pitkin Reserve, Cheek Subdivision, and a few miscellaneous metes and bounds parcels like the subject. The Pitldn Green area is one of Aspen's more desirable areas for its proximity to the downtown core, excellent south-facing views, and the quality of homes which have been buih in the area. The range in value for land and for older properties with outdated structures now ripe for demolition is from approximately $3,000,000 to $5,000,000+. Appropriately improved properties including new single family homes in the neighborhood generally range from $6,000,000 to $10,000,000, with a few select properties in cyxcess of that range. The predominant size range is from approximately 5,000 to 8,000 square feet, although, again, there are some houses larger than that. Pitkin Green and Red Mountain form a cohesive neighborhood of very high-end luxury single family homes. Amenities such as slri slopes, entertainment, religious institutions, shopping and services are all located in downtown Aspe�n within 2 miles. The Aspen elemernary, middle and high schools are all at the Maroon Creek campus approximately 2 miles west of the cenmal core. The Pitldn Green neighborbood Form TADD —'1MInTOTAI.' apprafsal sa4lware by a la mode, Mc. —1-B00-ALAMI�E r_R does not have public bus service, but tkus is typical in luxury neighborhoods where it is little used. Zoning: The subject property is zoned R-30, a Pitkin County zonimg category permitting one single family residence on 30,000 square feet of land area. The maximum building height in the zone is 28 feet for principal residences and 20 feet for accessory st�uctures. The 9oor area ratio (FAR) is .13:1, although the above grade maximum is reduced by any road easernents encroaching on peripheral areas of the lot and is sometimes reduced in the County's 1041 Review process. Basements up to 4,000 square feet and garages up to ?50 square feet are not part ofthe FAR maximum. Sickels Subdivision consists of two single fanuly lots, with the allowed buiId-out set during the approval process. The subdivision was approved in 1987; recorded in DeEd Book 19 at Page 60A Approvats allow for a 6,000 square foot residence on Lot 2 with the designated building envelope in the northern third of the properiy. SpeciScally excluded from the FAR calculations are "any unenclosed decks, garage areas, or sub grade mechanical areas." In addi6on all 800r azeas are calculated in accordance with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. It is my understanding that basements up to 4,000 square feet and garages up to 750 square feet are not part of this FAR maximum. The suhject is currenfly vacant, with a man made pond in the building envelope. Discussions with the owner indicate that the necessary peimits were obtained for this pond and it could be removed should the site be developed. In 2000, Pitkin Gounty passed a moratorium on development of homes exceeding 5,750 square feet (including garage and basement). The moratorium was lifted in June, with a restruoturing of the land use code placing a"by right" ma�mum structure size of 5,750 square feet on lots falling outside the Urban Growth Boundary (LJGB), Basement and mechanical areas are no longer exempt &om FAR and neither is garage area. FAR can be expanded by the purchase of transferable development rights (TDR's) sterilizing backcountry lands which the County views as unsuitable for development, or by competing for an annual allotment of square footage. The subject falls within the UGB and is thus not yet affected by ttris new legislation; however, the County is again in the process of rc-crafting the entire land use code, and the inevitable result will be further resfiction on house size. If this occurs, it can only improve the value of properties already built to their maximum. Site Comments: The subject is rougWy rectangular with 1.62 acres. According to the plat the center line of the Salvation Ditch runs along the northern portion of the site. Within this area is a 25 foot pedestriar�/equestrian trail easement for the benefit of the City of Aspen as recorded in Deed Book 535 at Page 963. Directly south of that is a 30 foot wide access and ut�7ity easemern as recorded in Deed Book 265 at Page 987. That easement connects with an ingress and egress easement for the Pitldn Green subdivision that connects with wlloughby Way. This access easement is privately maintained by the homeowners who live along it. The road is asphalt paved. A common driveway easement, also asphalt paved, for the benefit of Sickels Lots 1 and 2, is directly south of this easemem. A 30 foot wide utility easement nuis between the two lots to the Deuver and Rio Grand ri,ght-of way, connecting with a samtation utility easement as recorded in Deed Book 535 at Page 445. These easements have been considered in my analysis. The subject is located at the end of Willoughby Way, a twalane, asphalt-surfaced road connecting with Hunter Creek Road and in turn the City of Aspen to the south. Access off Willoughby Way is by way of a shared asphalt paved privately maimained road. The subject is bordered by the Salva6on Ditch to the north, single-family homes to the east and west and the Denver & Rio Grande right ofway to the south, The right of way is improved with the Rio Grande trail which nuis along the Roaring Fork River connecting with Cemetery Lane and Slaughter House bridge to the west and the City of Aspen to the east. The subject lot is sloping to steeply sloping downhill from north to south. The upper portion of the site is encumbered by road, ditch and utility easemems. The buildi env Qpe is bglow tiv',_„ s, �an _d is level q gently sloping. It is cwrently improved with a manuA��gQnd. Landscaping was difficult to examine due to snow, however the area around the pond is e�ensively landscaped with a ring of mature pine and Form TADU —'Win70TAL• appraisat soflwa�e by a ta rtade. inc. —1-SOo-ALAMOUE (oa aspen trees. The upper portion of the site is more steenlv sloning, and has a mixture of aspen, pine and cottonwood trees along with stuubs, bushes, wild grasses. The lower portion of the site to the Rio Grande trail is sloping to steeply sloping sage, shrub and tree covered hillside. The lot offers very good views south, southwest and southeast toward surrounding mountains. vews..are somewhat obstiucted by _ __.. _. trees around ihe pond, although views from the upper level toward surrounding mountains should be very good. The designated building envelope is large enough to support the allowed FAR, However, the pond is located in the building envelope and it would have to be removed, moved or modified should the site be developed. • Utilities available to the site include underground electriq KN Energy Natural gas, the Aspen Sanitation District and Cable TV. Water Rights: Although the lot is next to the Pitkin Crreen, which has its own water system, the lot has its own well and domestic water would be from this well. According to the quit claim deed the well percnit for Sickels Well No. 2 was issued on June 2, 1987. The subject also has water rights as issued in the Final Decree filed in Case No. 86C2279 by the District Court, Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado. Sickels Subdivision has 38,000 square feet of permitted lawn urigation of which Lot 2 is entitled to 12,000 square feet. It appears this water is aurently used to irrigate the area around the pond. Highesi and Best Use Comments: The neighborhood is zoned for moderate-density single fanWy reside,ntial consh�uctioq the only economically feasible allowed use. The neighborhood is one of Aspen's most desirable for its proximity to the cenual core, views, and the quality of the home in the neighborhood. New homes in the Pitldn Green/Red Mountain area have generally ranged from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet and in price category from $10,000,000 to over $I5,000,000. I feel the highest and best use for the subject site, if vacant, is for development of a luxury single family up to the maximum FAR permitted (6,000 square feet), along with baseme�nt to expand the functional ut7ity of the`home. The home should have at least four bcdrooms and 4.5 baths, a desirable master and guest sc�ite along with a 2-car garage. Competition and Exposure Time Comments (continuedj: As a general comment the market for luxury single family building sites in the Aspen/Snowmass area has been very strong since 1986 with the e�cception of a 1990-92 hiatus when the market was relatively soft, , but not declining. It became evident in 2001 thai ttus market strength had waned; market activity definitively declined in 200] and 2002. However, in 2003, 2004 and into 2005, we have seen an uptuxn in sales activity of vacant lots and a decline in inventory. � To deternvne an appropriate exposure time for the subject lots, I considered Multiple Listing Service (1vII.S) statistics. However, the MI.S year to date statistics for Zone 1, (the subject's zone) show few sales of duplex or multi-family lots as these properties are often placed in other categories. For tlus reason I considered statistics for single famity lots. The 2000 statistics from the Aspen Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service (MI,S) indicate marketing times for single family lots in the Aspen (Zone I) showed 25 sales with an average sale price of $2,453,000. Average days on the market were just over 15 months with properties selling wittun 93.3% of list price. The Z001 statistics show fewer sales and a drop in the average sale price. In 2001 there were 19 sales with an average sale price of $2,168,000. Average days on the market was just over 12 months with properties selling within 93.3% of list price. The 2002 statistics show slighdy more sales with 22, but a drop in the average sale price to $1,865,000. Average days on the market was just over 1 I mornhs with properties s�lling witbin 87% of list price. For 2003 the number of sales increased sIightly to 24 with the average sale price increasing 10% to $2,060,000, For 2004 sta3istics show that the market has continued to strangthen with 29 sales and an average sale price of $2,404,000; a 17 increase in the sale price. Average days on the market was 11 months with properties selling within 91% of list price. Year to date 2005 statistics show an increase in the average sale price, with properties selling closer to list price. To date there have been 13 sales, with an average sale price of $2,76Q,000; a IS% increase. Properties are now selling witlun 94% of list price. fonn TADO — WmTOTAI• a�ppralsal sdhvam by a fa mode, fns. —1-800-AIAMODE .1 � I also considered marketing time for the lots discussed in this analysis. Of the sales considered in this analysis, Pitkin Reserve Lot 6 was listed for 4.5 months before selling. Cronin Associates Parcel 1 was listed for six months before selling within 95% of list price. Cronin Associates Parcel 2 was not formally listed prior to sale. Pitkin Greea Block Z Lot 17 was listed for 2.5 months before selling at full list price. Ridge of Red Mouatain Lot 6 was listed for one year before selling within 95% of list price. Red Mountain Block 3 Lot 6A was not formally listed prior to sale, although it had been on and off the market for the past few years before selling. 1200 Red Mountain Road was listed for 3.2 years before selling at close to its most recent list price. At this time there are three lots that offer competition. I recognize that the market in general has improved considerably. Vacant land activity is very strong right now, and the supply of alternatives is dwindling. T'hese factors, and the subject's excellent location bode well for a sale in the next 6-12 months. In conclusion, I feel that the subject pioperty, if listed for sale at or near our estimate ofvalue, could be successfully sold within approximately 6 to 12 months. wm, Taoo — w�TOrn�• � son�►e n�r e a�, mc. —1-800�ALANtODE 1� SALES COMPARISION APPROACH TO VALUE: In this analysis I considesed a variety of vacant land sales in the Aspen area as shown below. The six most comparable, are adjusted on the market grid. The sales range significantly in size and value. The reader should be aware that often there is no correlation between price and size, however. Except where size enhances privacy or permits an unusually large home by 800r area ratiq it is usually of secondary importance to purchasers. Of primary importance are location, views, privacy, access��bility, availability of ut�ities, and appeal of the neighborhood. Direct per acre or per square foot value comparisons between properties are inapplicable and usually misleading. Sales were first adjusted for time, if necessary. They were tben adjusted for differences in Location, SiteNiew, Size, FAR, Topography, and Privacy/Site characteristics. The reader should be aware that adjustments are rarely definable from paired sales in the market. Buyers in this price category do not make detailed monetary adjustments when comparing properties. The adjustments are relarively broad brushstrokes drawn from our experience in the market. They are offered as an indication of our perception of where differences lie and the magnitude of those differences. Although some of the sales are older than I prefer, they are the best available and once adjusted provide a good indication of value. Before discussing the comparable sales I feel a brief discussion of appreciation for vacarn land is wa�ranted. As a general cornment, the market experienced rapid appreaation between 1998 through toward the end of 2000. Between 2001 and thorough 2003 the market was relatively flat. From 2004 and into 2005 the market for vacant land strengthened, and appreciation is once again occurring. To determir►e whether appreciation is warranted, a paired sales analysis was performed. Details pertaining to these sales have been retained in my files. Based on an analysis of this informatioq on a case by case basis, those sales older than six months have been updated for time at 1% per month. The first three sales are in the Pitkin Crreen area, near the subject. Sale 1: Pitkin Gr�n Block 2 Lot 17 located at 144 Magnifico Road was listed for 2.5 months at $3,750,000 before it sold in February, 2005 for full real estate commission, with conventional financing. As I do not feel it would sell any higher today no time adjusiment has been made. This property is within 1/8 mile of the subject. The site is improved with a small home that will be demolished, but had some interim value that I have allocated at $200,000 resulting in an effective price for the lot of $3,550,000. This lot offers very good views south, but is more steeply sloping, less private with inferior site characteristics. Adjusted, it suggests $4,970,000. I also note Green Acres Block 1 Lot 2 which was listed for $5,750,000, with the list price reduced to $4,750,000 before going under contract close to li�t price, scheduled to close in November, 2005. This lot is 1/2 mile &om the subject at 28$ Willoughby Way. It is improved with a small southwest style home that will in all likelihood be demolished and is given no value. The lot is similar in size with a simall level building envelope along Willoughby Way. The lot runs from Willoughby Way to the Roaring Fork River, although the Rio-Grande trail is located between the building envelope and the river. The lot offers excellent views south toward Aspen Mountain and svperior views of the river. Originallx it was thaught Form TADD —"W1nTOTAI' appraisal software by a la mode, inc. —1-800-AIAMODE —�•1 the allowed build-out was in the 4,000 to 5,000 square foot range. However, it was finally determined that due to access easements, the river and the Rio Grande right-of-way the allowed build-out was much lower at 3,400 square feet plus basement and garage. Because of the list price was reduced. Due to the much lower allowed build-out and site charaderistics of this site, this activity sets the lower range of value. Sale 2: Cronin Associates Yarcel l located at 107 Willoughby Way was listed for 6 months at $4,995,000 before.it sold in May, 2004 for $4,700,000, cash. This lot previously sold in Apri11998 for $2,700,000 showing a monthly appreciation rate of appro�dmately 1.1% although it is our perception that most of this gain occurred before December 2000. Updated for time suggests $5,566,000. This lot has a 1950's vintage home that overlooks a pond with views toward the Aspen Mountain ski area. The improvemerrts wil! certainly be demolished and add no value to the sale. This lot is within a mile of the subject at the base of Red Mountain. It has a higher allowed build-out, plus an allocation for basement and gazage. This lot is sim�ar in size, but mostly level to gendy sloping, with a variety of mature trees. Views are not as desirable, although it has a pond that can be incorporated into any new development. The building envelope is setback from the road and relatively private similar to the subject. Adjusted, this sale suggests $4,750,000. I also note Croniu Lot 2 closed in May, 2004 for 53,500,000. This site was not formally listed prior to sale although we understand that commission was paid. Updated for time suggests $4,105,000. Tlris site has 1.48 acres, with an allowed FAR of 8,381 square feet. It does not have the desirable site characteristics of the subject. Sale 3: Pitkin Reserve Lot 6 was listed for $6,990,000 with the list price i�reased to $7,500,000 before selling in September, 2005 for $7,200,000. Tt was also available with a 10,000 square foot spec home advertised at $15,000,000. This lot previously sold in December, 2003 for $4,100,000, and in October, 2002 for $3,700,000. Appreciation between the two most recer►t sales is 2.4% per month. This lot is a block from the subject in the Pitldn Reserve neighborhood. This six lot subdivision has a large common open space parcel between the Rio-Grande trail and the Roaring Fork River. Although smaller more of the site is usable and this is offsetting. The lot has a higher allowed build-out plus an allocation for basement and garage. lt offers superior more open views, and is lower on the hillside such that it has superior river influence. Adjusted, this sale s�ggests 55,760,000. As I feel this lot sold for an aggressive price, this activity sets the extreme upper range of value, and this sale is given least weight: Sale 4: Ridge of Red Mountain Lot 6located at 355 Ridge Road sold in May, 2005 for $4,000,000, T'he site is improved with a 4,063 square foot partially remodeled home and plans for an addition were also available. Some buyers considered keeping the house, but the new buyer will demolish it and build a new structure. Nevertheless I have $iven it $Z00,000 for the short term contnbution ofthese improvements. This lot is within a half mile from the subject in a somewhat crowded area of the Ridge at the end of a cul-de-sac, swrounded by other homes. It is smaller, but the site is more usable and ttris is offsetting. It has a lower allowed build-out of 5,380 square feet. It also has a height limitation which limited its appeal and this has been considered under FAR This site is primarily level to gently sloping with the added appeal of aa attractively landscaped yard, small pond and a�eek. The man made pond may or may not be retained when the site is redeveloped. At the time of sale the seller had started the 1041 review process and the buyer nee�ied to complete it. Adjusted, this sale suggests $4,750,000. Sale S: Red Mountain Block 3 Lot 6A located at 1347 Red Mountain Road sold in April, 2005 for $3,300,000. This lot was not formally listed prior to sale and was a direct transaction between buyer and seller. Given recent activity in Red Mountain, if eacposed to the market, I felt that it could have sold with full real estate commission and adjusting for this factor suggests $3,510,000. This lot previously sold in May, 2001 for $2,875,000, showing an annual appreciation rate of 5%. This lot is in the Count}+ zoned R-30 with an allowed build-out of 6,900 square feet; comparable to the subject. It is steeply sloping. However, a driveway has been roughed in and approadmately $500,000 in excavation was done to the site. This has been considered in my topography adjustment. The lot offers excellent views toward surrounding mountains. However, site characteristics and vegetation are much less desirable, ahhough a small spring crosses the property that could be used for a water amenity. Adjusted, this sale suggests $4,565,000. Sale 6: Red Butte Block 2 Lot z located at 1310 Red Butte Drive was listed for over a year a Form TADD --'WinTOTAI' app�aisal soriware by a la mode, inc. —1-800�ALAMODE �� just under $3,900,000 before selling in August, 2005 for $3,600,000. The contract was bought out and from our discussion with local Realtors the effective price paid for the lot was close to $3,900,000. This lot has a less desirable location further from town off Cemetery Lane. It is smaller, but is level and easily developable. It is in the City, zoned R-30, and has a slightly lower allowed baild-out. Although views are not as dramatic the site has river frontage which has a special appeal to the marketplace and is considered under site characteristics. Adjusted, it suggests $4,690,000. In addition to the above sales I have also listings in the MLS as of September 26, 2006. Ridge of Red Mountain Lot l located at 151 Nighthawk Lane was listed for $4,500,000 with the list price reduced to $4,OOq000 and was under contract for an undisclosed amoum. The site is on Red Mountain improved with a dated single family home. It has 1.21 acres and offers very good panoramic views toward surrounding mountains. 333 Sout6 Second Strcet was listed for $4,400,000. This lot is near the base of Aspen Mountain within five place of the mall. It is smaller with less than an acre. Approvals allow for 5,800 square feet above grade plus basement and garage. Views and site characteristics are much less desirable. Lacet Lot 6 was listed for $2,995,000. This small ,22 acre lot is on the east side of town. It has a ma�dmum allowed build-out of 5,700 square feet and can only help to set the extreme lower range of value. The limited supply of alternatives has been an important consideration in my analysis, Sales Comparison Approach: $4,565,000 - $5,760,000 Fam TADO �-1NinTOTAI' appraisaf sailwaue by a la mode, inc. — t-800�ALAMODE �� rist `� 0 � ~ . . •c•, • � � ' 's: ' . ..�.. � . ' ' � ' .' . . � O �6 . • • , •• � ' 1 ., .... 8 � W�, • �� • '• • " . � �• W�' • • .,: � ,. �i ' J � � H• , • , , W • ' •• ..� . • '� ! V� r• . �' • `•� � `� ' '. • ' ^ L I ' • . .. ',,.. e . ,. .. , y Y • > . p ' � • : j. _ . • . � . • i�'�v. . i ,i .,�. f,• �� , ry , ' • � , ; , • . ,' 1—: ' ''�. ,�, . O , . �r ~ `'~; ''�-• • �,, �: ' . r' ;� . . �`� .�+,..� i� '3 • �' • � � • 7' r,: • -� `' . i : �. � 1• 1 ,` � �' � • , � �� - ', Q. ,,•' . { �J.� S- � � � iti ; :.i ; • � �t, • ' : �^ �Y.. ; i. J . L , � � . a. � � . W. •3: � , ``: �• ,f•�. • � 4 - . •t } • �4 . a'i ' . ` . v - ^� • .,,� • 4 . � � � � j �D. � � U . � Z � . . � ~•��iS • �` .. 1 � t �, • - . � i. � r . 1.� --. ___ ... � �1 di .��M1 . i ~w• � I w ' .�• I � jER : • I�' : -, : -,_• . : �i� yti . /. /i� •' J �� :; f �f � . �• � :.1 � �"�.. .f ! ty« �� . ..� i• ��.� �! • , .-.��` �; • 1. ~.: • - . •., � � , w�n sicteasa —�wmTOru• appraisal soRware by a la mode, �c. —�-soo-nuu�onE 'l`j aup�ecz rnoio� Subject Looking East TBD VYYloughby Way Subject Looking Northeast Subject Looking Northwest Form PIC3x5.TR — WinTOTAL' appraisal soflware by a q mode, inc. — t•800-ALAMOOE ,� auo�ecz rnuiu� View Southwest � TBD WAloughby Way .a � - ,� ,�_:a�� Subject Looking South -�.� __ . - View along Access Road Form PIC3�5.TR —'WinTOTAL' appraisal soflware by a la rtade� inc. —1•800•ALAMODE 11 _. e . s,.. _- � t,a. � . �' ,' \ • t _ � yw n. 1 � i � 1 � -. .��3,��'"�t'1'�'x _nr ... F .1¢:�?•�a•_..1: ��,'� �i.� � �i .A ' ` . + ' �-� ' � �4. . _ !� 1 . - _ �'i- _ �.'r • . . I • - 1 . � � . t` � '• _ � 't" - 1 't�� '.�' . .' _ " _ . ' ' . . - . , , � C" ' , i ,I . . . . - � i Y' , ' ; : �, � _ � . .- - _ :r: ._ro: • �"_ .,r, - � - - ' � . ,. , , , �', � �� - , i,-� .."` � a'1' . .. .- �,• ' .._ �n...,[ �- . . •,.. ' . _ -+ �� .w��_• �` ./a� ,..,. . � , �,_ � � ;� � '?.: ��} ,j��`�� •.r' f , �.:.�� '� � ,+�.Fi!'r?�'p!.d'-.yii�k�.ha��••��:.'- i{ � � I� y r't�r �. 'i' t�' .t yy 4 f r� � � ,i:t .• � _ ��1�„q�{�✓��4�F'1/�� 1'j � �,��v �„�•' l:,•. �� ._I f�� .� � i_ F1t sr} C 1 A�t�4 r l�i'r � � r 1'*3i �. �•.t ��t. �, s� i' '� t i.. l... ,.• l n. ,�. .1 .. - � 4,�-.�:��,f � ..a�"�� :� �-� �.,p. :,.,, c•.' 4' ,x� ` `� i. . �.� � .,,�I� �� '�� '' � �� '� .,' ,y71 i �h i r_.�. r; • -, � � , � ;.} ;,` � :; ``w : .' �K � �. `' +4^,.� i�-'�'ti , �� I l � ~'�'�.� .I.n,��' �4 J' , .'•^ f -" , ,i!R.�, .fl� - `T'�'. i:' ,l. c.w;,.�r. _ . j� '�, � �_ .._ - . , - � ':�. 1`M,. ! � •I.�.�1� �c�: ,� . . ,' � �1�� • i i�;, +.� �•}'��.F. � = ` � -- �. 1, � I r��e♦ t�t n�„ , � �4 i , i _ .. { ;+�� .�._ ".,�� . i ;� rl.� . �� ' •� .7 .�� "!y' . rt • ' • � I �' .��.:1. _,-! '':4..�� I�, � j � � �� :i �� rf 1 � � . ': � ( � �-'^:( . 9 '�_ •`ti ; � �.1 �`�..�r r ��.. • . . : � � , _ � ..t � _ ± _, ,� :'.z . ..: . . � . • � � i ,;li �t .''- -I,;t'��' ; ;;.y � -:•M'r'= ; , r,.. .��-. � � . : ., � - ��-.�.� . .;� �;��. f? �' �� y _� i� • r,�,� y' .�-: JC. �;,�! � . } � � � ,� ' .��1� ,�.' '�e' M.tt y"'S; '!1. '•`�': ��/(��, — � , ti � _ ��{i !M� ?�;S �1 .. . • � ,v � i.` �. A !Y� 'l. � ' •�1j�� ' w.w+�M�,�w'%,�♦ �' a.-. �1 s� • ` -N! . • Y. .^.' +. fa. �t � �'-- -p �• ' ';��%r _ 1: .��. ��. � �Y' T �• at� ; y�,� �' . . . �' .��. ' J� �A'.` _ Y � � .. t �';' �G. '�� ;•!f: �T�'�'yi.p ;l Y-� . . .I:a,=' , . �, �r�-+�.�r.`'�G�Mu, �� , w: �� .. , .- .,�rr -, �� •� �.�!`r. '�','x. - �• ,c � r �� . '4-"'�-�"'�, , r�`�'" i (_ . . y,�rwr ,!'• :+v'h _T,7. yll. ' .,�'.1`i .. _.C19iF:'r��' ,..i ,�,�T� �.�1:� ,..'7k-��.� �� `�'... 1 �r'��'��.',�:' � :f4:`.^.f� ..�...�.....��... . ...�.� . —a� —�� 4 %`_;:�M.,,, j:.- �. �s;`va Comparable 4 355 Ridge Road Comparable 5 1347 Red MourKain Road Comparable 6 1310 Red Butte Drive Form PIC3x5.BC — WinTOTAI' 2ppraisal soflware Dy a p mode, ino. —1-800-ALAMOUE mA �ite rian . ,n,r:.i .6�.�� i.> tl.m Grou � invesuren� —' -.. i_---- ---•--° __l.ibt TIiD_WdlouLtio�:N1;?v �._,. � � . .._ � .�__._-- � l :, .-.5 C!1 "_"'._._.... _ .._..�....__.."._"._—_�"'._ .___" ��..r�,�: ��f;oa�nvesimern t{ 1 ,-.. ;i� f�.,� , ,- . . " . :, .!., . ' ,�-+� ,. � ' � : . `.. . ' ` - � ��l ., : . n � � �r�� ., V�� . i . . � ti,_ . . • � � ' 1' 1 �' � �,.-, '--�i �y, � �� . ^"V ' - .' ."_ e r, ��• . � l,—:., ._i , ` �,�-`�.' . • � ' ' _' : _ �•, '. .. `",�i.. 't` _, .�� . � �� ` .. �' <,`,}'� • .. ', i . , -,+.`�. l• , �� . ,. � T „ • , ` ��vm SKT B1;15ki —"Ain141n�' 4{1OIdISAI )�if�501P U� a Id D1U(JP.. l[K "' I SQU•i1Lk��iODE Qn ...��.�.�.. ...�r c � �4 �� qy �a N �A i� � � �4 ' . �. Aaqe Rd � Meroon Geek _ Gdf Carse � I � �� b $ $ 4 �i� u� 19A � 1iY � � z� i � � � � � �. � ��F A � ►�� 'r' � 65 � � �� 4a °s P , ;i`;.�� Ft � L�17Y pL g, • ti � S R r pq�� k$� � ,� F s � Are ��q�� s y � � � � �� e 4 � �� a,�,� : • .� � , . --- �,� �ac ---_ _---- otooa �watcy OmawnC.+rJwcoT.as Form MAP.LOC —'1MnTOTAI• appraisal sottware by a la mode, im. —1-800-AU�MODE Y vwe�l• MapPoint' O� DEFINITION OF NIARKET YALUE: The most piobabk price which a ptoperry shadd hrinp in a ca�alaive and opai market imder atl con�UUons �equisfte to a fair sale, the b�ya aal se0er. each actln8 Pnde�tlN, ��a�N and ass� me �a is no► aneca�a ny �naue sunn,n�s. �rc �n uas ddini�on is ihe oo�on of a sak as d a spailied d�e aiM tte passirg o( tilb from seBa m buyu unda condttlons wl�aeby: (1) buyer md se9er are typica�y motivvated: (� bdh parties ue rveN informad or we� advised, arid each a�tirg in wfnt he rnisiiders his own bat 4de�sk (3) a rasonabb time is albwed fw e�osure in ihe opai markek (4) payment Is rtede in hms d cash in U.S. dolars or in tems a� finare(al art�rpemenls �nparabb theroto; and (� the pria �epreseMs tha mrmal consideratian fa the propaty sold waflected by speaal or creative tirprcinp a sales concessbns' grar�ed by anyone associa4ed wAh Uie sab. • Adjustrnebs io iho cwry�arabks rmrst be made fa spx�l a c�eaWe fircmicinp a saks cron�essias. No adpabnads are ne�ssary ta those casts which are normaBy paid by se�ms as a resuQ of iradAbn a law in a mazket area; tlbse cosls are rp�y Me�fiabk sinca the sdla pays tlbse oosts In viAua�y aY sales trarax6ois. SpxW or cmamve fin�wq aqusbnads cm be made to the compuabb prupe�ty by comparisons �o finaneirg �errtrs offecod by a Wrd parly 6stiddional kr�er tlrat is not aheady unolved in the propeAy a Uaisadbn. IUry adusfiierd shoWd not be calcubled a� a rtichazdcal dopar lor do6ar cost aQ the t�ncinp a co►�ssbn but Uie do0ar amoud of ary adjiabtd�t should approam�e 1he I�rkeYs tea�tan 10 tla firentinp or cat�essions bas� on tt�e aPPraisa's judgwne�d. STAYEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTIMGENT AND UMITiNG CONQRIONS: The apprafsa's cerG�'ication 11� appears in tta appratsal report ls subjed to ihe fo9owing condiGom: 1. The aPPraiser wiU nut be respo�ibb far mattds of a bpal r�ahae tl�at affed aUnr tha properly beirg apptaised a the ti1b to �. Tha appraisa asswes tt�at the title b good and rt�arketable and. iherdare� wil not rmda any opiniata abo�t the tdle. The propmly is appraised on �e basis d� be6q wda iespais�rb ow�ership. 2. The appraisa has prwided a slcetch in 1he appraisal aport to slpw appwdrr� dimasfor�s of ihe imp�ovemcrds and tle skehh 's ineYded oN� to assist the reader of the �epod in visualainp the property amf wMershnd'eg Uie appraiset'a delarti�ion of Hs size. 3. The appralsa has wmndned ibe avaiWbk fbod ma� that are pmvided by ihe Podetal Ema9�Y �9� A9e�Y (a a�er daW so�cces) and has noted in the �ppraisal report wMher ihe s�jed siDe is bc�ed in an ida�5fied Spxial Road Hazard Area Because tlie appraisa is not a swvryor. he or she makes no guara�s, a�ress or imp6ed, regardirg this delartdr�on. 4. The appraiser wil not gNe testimoM a�PPw in cout because he a she made an appraisal � Ura pro�ly in qusstlan, wdess spxilk u�a�qarobs to do so have been made beforefwnd. 5. The appraisa ha4 estimadcd the wa4ie oi tlie qnd in the cost appro�h at �S highest and best use and tle irtqKwrdnads at thdr eo�butoiy vaqre. lirse sepaiate vap�atlas ot the krd and irt�proverne�s rtast tat be used in conjia�ction wdh any olher appra�al and are inra6d if they aie so used. 6. The appraisa has rated in tl�a �ppraisal report arry advase corddbns (SUCh as, needed rcpairs, deprocladbn� tlm presence of hazardas wastes. iwdc substance.a, eh.) observed duririg 1he Inspei.fion d 1he subl� P�PW►Y a th� he a she became aware d duriig �e mrmal roseach invoked in P��9 tlie appraisal. Utdess olherwise skkd in Ue aippraisal repmt,lhe appraisa has m kawbdya of any Ndden or wapp�rat condfions ot tlie pmperly a adve�se emiramienlal condfliaa (ircp�np the presaix a4 hazardous wastes� to�dc substances, a�.) tl�at woidd make tha ptope�ly mwe a less vapiabb, a►b has assim�ed tlwt tlrae are no such condidor�s ard makcs no guaranhes a wartandes� o�ss or hnp6ed� �epardbq the caid�on d tlie propeAy. The appra�a wfY not be responsbb fa ury sueh condiGwis thad do adst or for any agLeerinp a testl�p ih� mipid ba �ed fi discover whetha such conditions odst Because tAe appraisa is not an e�ert in the fidd af emiromiatal hazards, ihe aPPraisal report miat not be corsidaed as an emimnnwrAal assassrt�errt of tlie properly. 7. The appraiser oblair�ed Uie irtorma�on, estlmffies, aiM opiniors tha� wero e�xessed in 1he appralsal ropat from saras thdd he or she considers to be re8able and 6eices U�em io be true and cortect The appnisa does na4 assiene respons�Uiiy ta 1te acetracy ot sueh fErdre tf� were turtished by otlia par6es. 8. The appraisa wi'� not discbse 1he cw�dents of 1he aPPraisal teport �pt as ptovided for in 1he Unitorm Standards of Rohssarel Appraisal Rac6ce. 9, ihe appraisa has based Ns a ha appraisal roport a� v�ion coneNsba fw an appraisal tl�at fs sub(at to satisfactory comple6on, apairs, a aReratio� on ttie assumptlon tl�at compbtlon of ffie imprwanerds vn'� be pertortred 'm a wo�im�ar�iloa manror. 10. The app�aiser mst p�ovide his or her prla wriCen corsad 6efo►a the knder/c�nt spedtied N the appraisal �epat can dishibute the appraaal report (u�cludkg caKhBio� about fhe piopay value, ihe apprafsa's idamly aiN prohssioral desiyrelions� arM �aiaences m airyr pradessiorel appraisal agardzatlons or �e firm wAh wfdch tk appraiset is �sociakd) to arryone otlbr Uwn the bwrower, the nqrlgagea or � successas and assig�� the mortgage inswa� a�uGards; pr�essional aPM�� a9�� Y � a t�N aPP�d ifnarcial i�sdl�o� or anY departrnenl� ape►aY� or I� of the United 5tahs or any sta�e a the Distrid d Cohmibia4 �Pt if�at the IaMa/ciM may d� the propaly descrippon sa,�tion � tla rt�at oriy iu dala colbction or roportirg senia�sj witliout having to obtain 1he appraiser's pria r� ca�erd. �me a��rs wrao�, consa� ana a�mv� m,sc ais.o 6e obtaired bdore Uie appraisal can be wmeyed by anyoro to 1M pubGc though adrei6sing, puDk reladors, twws, saks, or ott�w media. keddie Mac Fwm 439 6-93 Page 1 of 2 Farode Mae Porm 10046 fr93 Aspen APPraisal Grmq� u� era .... nu��mre� ��t�,� .nn�,,,.. iw a h mtit. tM _�..a✓�ei eurm �,-f APPRAISEB'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certilios and agrees that t. I have reseuched the sub]ect rtiarkst area ard have sabcled a mimmum of tteee recent saks of properties most slmlhr and prwdmate to tAe subi� Y�V�M fw cartida�lon In tb sab compuison ararysis and h�ve r�ade a doBaz adushnent wAen app�opriaDe to rofbct ihe market rtactlon to tlasa i0e� ot sipnillcaii varialioa A a significard IOem In a comparabb propuly Is supertor to, w more tavorabk than, the subiect pmpaty, I have made a rega�ire ad'justrrord to redux Uie ad�usted sales ptke of ihe cort�arabb am1, N a sigdflcard Hem in a comparabb property is irderiw to, a kss favorabb than Uro stmject ptopaly, I have made a positive ad'rystrnerd to ircrease ihe a�justed sabs p�Ce of the cortq�arabb. 2 I have taken Irto considaration the facbrs fhat have an impad on vapie k� my devebpro�d o( the esdmaDe of nwi�t valua in tle aPPrabal reporL I have not knowingy wttfdbld any sig�icaiR frAom�on from tln apPrafsal ►eport and I DdN;ve� bo tla best d my laawledge� 11�2 aU sb4emer� and irtormation h 1he 2Ppf81S21 �OPOR df811U6 211d COffECf. 3. I staded in ttie appratsal roPmt onN mY own petsonal, unblasad� and prolessional anaysis� opinions� a� corw&�sions, which are subject o�dy to the cotdingert and limi6ng cond'�ia�s specHbd in 1Ns fam. 4. 1 have no prosard or prospective irdaBSt in tha P►uPertY d�at a the subject io Uds repod� and ( have no prosud a prospxtive petsor�al iMerast w bias wdh respxt to the participa+ds in the taraacUon. I�id not base� eitler P�l� w�P�N� mY �� tM esllmate � mazloet vapie in tha aPPraisal ►eporl on the rue� cobr, ro69ion, sex, handicap� tanaial stat�s� or �orel orfgin af e�ha tle prtupe�iva ownets or occupards oi the subJ� P�Y w of the presmd owners w occupaMs af the propertles in the vicinity ot Uro subject ptope�ty. 5. I have no preserd or caAamplated tuhue In2aest In tla sub�xt piopedy, ard neltlier my cunad or fidure employme�d nor my compasaa�fon tor pe�fomring tNs aPPraisal is con6igad on the appraised value ot tha properly. 6. I was nat rcqu6ed to repat a predetemdned wahie or d'uaiion in value ttr� favors tde cause o( Ue c6at a ary � paAy� the artroimt ot the value esfimate, tlie adtaimneid o1 a specitk resWt, or the occurrance ot a subsoquerd erent In wda to rerxNe my compx►s�on and/or a�loymerd for perfortNng the appraisal. I Wd not base the appraisal roport on a roquested mirdmum waluadfon, a specfic vaMration, or11a tbed to approve a specUic mortgape ban. 7. I performed this appraisal In conformZy wilh tle Unnam StatMards af Professionei Appraisal Practice tlret rrae adoP� � P►� bY � APP� Standards Board of The Apptaaal Found�on and lhat wae in place as of the stfecibe daGe af tHs apptdisal, wAh 1he axapBon of the depaRwe pravisioll of Uqse SlarMards. which does rat appy. I adooxrledpe tl�at an es6mab ot a roasoirabk time ior e�osue (n the opai marlad is a cond�on in tlro dd'initlon of markd vahie arM the estlma[e I devebped Is consistent w(th ihe maikedng Ume notad in the roighborlaod sxOon of tlis repwt, urtless I t�re otlieiwise shated in 1he txa�a'G�on seelion. 8. I have P��h �P� the inhrior and e�deriw aueas ot the subjad propeAy and Uia e�orior of aG propaties 8siad as compazabbs in ihe appraisal npoit, I fwtlxr cedify Uart I haVe nohd anY apPa►at w bawn advase �ons in �e s�1ed irtq�►oranerds, on tlie wbjed sfie� w an any sile wI1hM tte imme�ate vidn�y of tlie subject P►opeM of which I am aware aM have made a�ustrneds iw tlase adverse conditlas In my arpysis d the piopaly w+lue to the ebad tha2 f had rt�et evidence to suppat tliam. I have also commeidcd about tl�a effect of the adrerse caid�ions on the marketabiGly of 1he sublect P�Y• 9. I personapy prepared aY concksions and opWons abo�d the real est�e th�rt were set fodh In the appraisal rnport. M I reded on sigNficud pMessioml assistance from airy idl�idual w individuais In tle peitomiance af the apprais� a the preparadon of ihe appralsal repat� I have �med suoh hdivfdual(s) and discbsed the sP�� sla pertomed by tham in the rxoncliadon sa�on of Uis �ppraisal rapmL 1 certiry Upd any in�idual so �med is qiaiHed 10 parform Uie tasks. I hm not aWiotized arryone to make a chanpe �O any itam in th repat lhmefwe� i( an uiaulhoriz� change is made m Eie aPP�aisal tepor� I wil take no responsiW6ly for d. 10, The reported analysis, opinions �td conclusions were developed, and this raport has been propared in conformily wilh the requiremerris of ihe Code of Professionai Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the APPRAISAL INSTITUTE. 7F�e use of this report is subject to the APPRAISAI. INSTITUTE reta�tir�y bo ►eview by its dtdy represeMatives. As of the date of tlus report, I have completed the requiremerds under the conOnuinp education program of ttie Appraisel Instilute. SUPERViSORY APPRAISER'S CERYIFICATION: If a supavisory appraiser s(pred ihe appreisal tepat, Ae or she certlfia and aymes tl� I directly supavise the appr�sa who prepared the appwisal repat, have ravkrved the aPPraisal report, a@ree w�h the stderterts ard corohsions ot the aPP�� agra to be boud by the appraisu's cehMfoadbns msnbared 4 th�ough 7 above, and am taldng fW resporei6i8y for the apptaisal and the appraisal roport. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: TBD Wdlouphbv Wev, Aspe�, CO 81611 APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (onlr if required): Sigr�ahae��.–C��'C ��, Signahm: Nama Bets Krizmanich SRA"AI Narne: Darte St�ned: \ -� DaM Signed: Stala Cedilicatian #f: CG01313 St�e Cpdficamon d: w Stale lianse #: or SGme Uarae #: S�te: CO 5ta�e; E�Iratlon Date of Cmdfication a Licaae: 12/31/2006 Explramon Dake d Cerdflca�on w licaaa ❑ DM ❑ DN1 Not Insput Property Freddle Mac Form 439 6�93 Pape 2 ot 2 famie Nlae Fam 10048 6-93 Portn ACR —'W'mTOTAL' appraisal soriwam by a la mode, Inc. —1-800�ALAMO�E �� Qualifications of: ELIZABETS (BETSY) ICRIZMA1vICH, SRA Professional Aff'�iations T`he Appraisal Institute, SRA #2647 Certified Genernl Appraiser, State of Colorado, #CG01313336 Licensed Rea! Estate Broker in the State of Colorado Member of the National Association of RealWrs Member of the Aspen Bwrd of Realtots Education University of North Caroliha at Chape( Hill, Master af Re�onal Planning, 1983 Duke University, BA, 1978 Appraisal Institute: Unive�ity of North Carolina: Real Estate Prinaples Real Fstate Development Basic Valaarion Procedures Real Estate Finance Capitali�stion Thaory & Techniques A&B Housing and Public Policy Case Studies in Real Estate Valuadon Imeshanent and Low Incoute Housing Business Report Wriring PobliclPrivate Investment Standaids ad'Professional Appraisal Practice Condemnation Appraiser as Expert Witness Experience Appraiser-Consultant, T'he Aspen Appraisal Group, Ltd (formerly Mollica 6t Assoc.): October 1985-pnsent Colorado Real Estate Salesperson: 1988-praent Assoaiau Apprniser, A.J.Keily, Ina,l7envar CO June 1984-October 1985 Chief Planner, Stamford Educational Public Policy Impact Team, Stamford CN, May-Sept, 1982 Designated RM by Americaa Institute of Real Estate Appcaisers: Septemba 1990 Exchanged for SRA Designation effective January 1, 1991 Major Clients Wells Fargo Mesa National Alpine Bank US Bank Lender's Secvias, Inc. Chase Manhattan Vaxra Bank Communiry Banks APCHA Value Tf PiUdn Counry City of Aspen Single Fannily Residendal CommerciaURetail Lodges/Hotels Special Purpose Buildings Mortgage Financing Listing Marriage Dissoludon Appraisal E:perience MWd-Family Residentlal OfSce Vacant Bailding Sites Easements/Condemnadon Purposey Tax Planning Eslate Planning Acquisidon Insurable Cost Statement of Ce�tificxtion Condominiums Proposed Construction Development Land Condemnation The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary prog�ani of continuing education for its dcsignatocl members. SRA's who meet the minimum standard of this progcam are awarded periodic education artification. I am curnntly certified nnder tbis pmgram through December 31, 2005. Wrm TAUD —'WInTOTAL' appraisal soRware bq a la mode, irc. —1-H0�-ALAMODE I.7rl 0 � �. = ¢ ��,, s�= � - �' � � y " s �' _ s �� a— . � — � ' � ,•� �- � � r . . � �. , .. � . � . � 1 . . � . �. � � i � _, t�t] ' t.� _ � _ � r ;� ? � ' £� ` { `J , �� i � � � ', � . . . ^ � � ;_ . .. J , . � C A� ' i w I � 1. �� ^ t� y a� � y�� e ,-. ? 1�� , � " , , �� ' �� ;' � � �� ,� �' �� ' : ' i � � , �_ C: ; � � ; %�� ''��J� 1 I `� �l�lir�l qSr MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County, Board of Coun Commissioners FROM: I�fike Kraemer, Planner�% � � THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director DAZ`E: November 18, 2009 RE: Pitkin Group Inves�ient — Appeal Hearing Update SUMMARY OF APPEAL: The AppeIlants have appealed Hearing Officer Determination No. 10-2008 which granted an Activity Envelope and Site Plan Appmval, and a Minor Plat Amendment for construction of a single family residence on a vacant lot APPI.ICAI�TT: Pitkin Gmup Investment Co. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES: Stan Clauson and Chris LaCroix AppEi.i.ANTS: Arvind and Namrata Ahuja APPELLANTS' REPRESENTATTVES: Rick and John Neiley LOCATION: 1170 Willoughby Way. Lot 1 of the BOCC approved Sicicles Subdivision STAFF UPDATE: Over the course of the last 12 moni.�s �e Applicant and Agpellants have agreed to co�tinue BOCC appeal hearings in effort find agreement over cieveiopment af this vacant lot Staff has be,e�► apprised of the fnequency of negotiations between tl�e AppIicant and Appellants and it f�as been staied that fustber negotiations are needed in effort to avoid an a�speal hearing before the BOCC. It has been requesEed that the appeal hearing be continued once again ta December 16, 2009 for further negotiations. ATTA�ffi1+�NTS: A. None. � U� 1 Page 1 of I . Appraiser Recommendation for an Abatement Assessor Generated ❑ Taxpayer Generated ■,� To: Tom Isaac, Pitkin County Assessor From: Micah Hayward Date: 6/28/2010 Petitioner: Barbara Ingalls Shook Schedule #: 12602 Parcel #: 273501304002 The appraiser has completed a review of the referenced property, as of this date, and hereby submits a recommendation as stated below: ■ = Deny 0� Approve as Submitted ❑ AbatemenURefund Different than requested Abatement for Year: 2007 Data collection period 7/1/2004- for ear #1: 6/30/2006 Assessment Rate: 7.96% Tax Area: 008 Mill Lev : 23.913 Actual Value this ear: $8,400,000 New Value: N/A Abatement for Year: 2008 Data collection period 7/1/2004- for ear #2: 6/30/2006 Assessment Rate: 7.96% Tax Area: 008 Mill Lev : 24.939 Actual Value this ear: $8,400,000 New Value: N/A Assessed Value Tax Amount Assessed Value Tax Amount Original value: $8,400,000 $15,989.20 Original value: $8,400,000 $16,675.20 Corrected value: $ N/A $ N/A Corrected value: $ N/A $ N/A Refund: $ N/A $ N/A Refund: $ N/A $ N/A The basis of this recommendation is: The 2007 value was protested and denied at the Assessors level and at the CBOE. Due to the 2007 value protest, the subject is not eligible for an abatement for 2007. Comparable sales support the 2008 value of $8,400,000. Please see attached comparable sales spreadsheet. Chief Appraiser Approval: Assessor Approval: �1 v N (fl m � m ZZO�� D cn � D cn � �-�=cn� m� m m r�x � rn c� D r" � v' r � � � m � � D��ZN O � v �� cn C D m� Dm D z cn � �� m— n m m °� � � D -�'i � � � � D D z m Z m� � r � y c D m" m m � � � � � � ' � C Z < � m (n m , r D� n�i �� o C � D m N � � N Ill � � � = C D o y Z cn m N � n � 6 � �. � � � � � � C O . < C v �m ? � � � � m � W D n�i D�' � n � p � n v � � � � NO o v�i N � � � z Z � -� .°�.' � � � � � � � � � � � �� D o � co � v O V �1 O O O O O � � Z N N (n � � � � � �. � y O n � � � � � � � m° a, � o 3 Z o a �,,� � � � � � N � O � O CT yq {�y b9 � N N F N y N O � � � N O N N � � � A � � O O 0 . . Z �.'�.N��r � D�Ow � � � � �' � � � � � 1 � c�i� a O � � � Z 0 </� � N � W Q N O O A FA li9 � �i Cp N N O CT � ` � � � W � v v CJ� CJ� � C37 � � N 0 0 O 0 0 tfi 0 Cn N O O O O ffl � CT O O O O O �� z 0 0 rn �,—.O � C Z � D N � ' m `--- fn N (n O O < � - �%% C O � � 6 T � n n � w� � �17 � � �� N �� v a ; r � n 0 ? � N � � W � N � � � m .��. , r� Subject Photos ',� {r y5� �k 1�?y""o�� :�'�'� .�, *�° �`� - Mpt+ F}�. ' 4' � � '�' �'b� �''9aere''S' � . . % .., `' e`�. nx-�. ��. � �, � , , � ' „ .. . �. �� •" a_�'z .�:ci� ��-'�� .P'' �r. y . �- , .. . �' ' � �-.... . �.:.« r;.,;......> _ . �+ ' - _ i .: ,.. . � � � ., : --. L ,a' . # z„ _ � � % ..�' �'_ ' ..°.. � ,-. 'n�" i , c . ��::' ,x� � * `fi _ •�` _ � s _ �° j . _ �� ' '�� °��' � , ,� � �... . , w ,. � . ,� .r?� a �'� - - �� ' :. ,�. . . � . � .. ,z�:: � .� 5.", .:: `� " : ' , .,. � _ �� . � � .-�: � . �. . ,7.i,i � � � : � ., ; .,x; . . T . ..:.,. ° �' -.,.: .� .. f,4 �i.-a�w '�� a�� d.��'' :.��I.�� , , ,A �w �� E�'�.. . � �a?� „�. � � '+, r,� �� ' '�° �! �;�� 1 , �� L'f � f, s �; c . .4.�, . � ,..� '..�._ . �„`:'; �a �, � '� �� , e�� a .Yai�a � <,s` " � ,. . . �,�� ft° k � � �Ni �.�#�... ,, a-�� . � =�" `¢.: r. w �;, � � �� Comparable Sale Photos �� . � : �� s, � , �:A $ : �` �.. � I,� �� .,t 'Y,� :...� �``' � ..---- - - . ,. --°�., . . � _. .. -= � _ . , __.__. A'. ':,�` . ' _ ; �� 4 ..,� � �; 4 .. , �,,. i . � ; ,e�„r .�8_ ''<; � �' *'�': . ` . ,,,_ +�. Comparable Sale #1 Comparable Sale #2 �� ,� � Comparable Sale #3 `� Location Map �` s � . � n � � � Za�-� �1. �� PITKIN COUNTY . 200�7 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATION • TO BE FILLED OUT BY ASSESSOF:'S OFFICE: � � Property Owner Name �� - � •-- Property Owner's Representative �_7�� n �� 9��/ 1!�l�l 1 Schedule # \�a � � - Property Address ��C� W ��`�� Legai Descripfion � � , � � � �- � Hearing Dafe 81� �D � � Hear�ng Time � � ► �.� `��. �� Assessor's Representative ��, �� 0..v l�.sQ, � Owner's Requested Value . � Owner's Basic Reasons, • TO BE FILLED OUT BY HEARING OFFICER: . BOE Comments/Remarks � �/�tL, � Determination: [�,No Change ❑The Following change: ,. . .<< Present Value Adjusted Value c �and _ Improvements Total . 9 . . Hearing Officer F-�'-i� �P+��- _ � Hearing Officer Signature �� L� � � bocclboeldocumentationlhearing_officer determination.doc � �Z �d - � I�1 �� 7'Z Z l !� NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Date: July 21, 20!10 Petitioner: Barbara Ingalis Shook c% Ga�eld & Hecht 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Schedule No. R126Q2 Dear Petitioner(s): Pursuant to CRS 39-10-114, you have requested that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) consider your petition for abatement or refund of taxes � • At a meeting held on July 20, 2010, it was the decision of the BOCC to : � Approve abatement as requested � Approve a partial abatement � Deny the petition for abatement Assessor's valuation BOCC amended valuation: $ SEE ATTACHED $ SEE ATTACHED • Further appeal procedure; If the Board af County Commissioners (CRS 39-10-114(1)) or the state property tax adrx�inistrator (CRS 39-2-116) denies the petition for refund or abatement of taxes in whole or in part, the petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals (1313 Sherman St, Room 315, Denver, CO 80203, 303-866-5880) pursuant to the provisions oi CRS 39-2-125 (b) and (c) within 30 days from date of the BOCC decision. For further information regarding the Board of Assessment Appeals you can visit their website @http://www.dola.colorado.gov/baa. • Refund, if applicable: If an abatement petition was approved in full or in part, the assessor will adjust his records accordingly and the treasurer will process a refund if the taxes were previously paid. g�bocc�boelabatementdenialnotice2010.doc