HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.167.2010APPROVED BY ��he�iti �"�-�p��se ��C ����� �
RESOLUTION C� ENN;�=� �h�'`'''^'� �` 36 y � '
'jr�(Q / pCD I D FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY
• (Sectian III Q Sxtion IV mue� �e complatatl)
�"� very� pe�ition (or abatement w re/unC flled purauant to sedion 39-00-714 shall be edetl upon pursuant b Me proNSions of Mis seIXion by ihe
boarE olcounty commissioners orUe essessoq as apPropria�e, within siz mon�hs of �he date o( fling such petitlon, § 39-1-113(1.]), C.R.S.
Section ul: Written Mutual Agreement of Assessor and Petitioner
(Only lor abatemenb up to §1,000)
The wmmissioners of Counry authorize the assessor by Resolution No.
to review peEtions for abatement or refund and to settle by written muWal agreement any such petition for
abatement or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel, or lot of land or per schedule
of personal properry, in accordance with § 39-1-113(1.5), C.R.S.
The assessor and petitioner mutually agree to the values and tax abatemenVrefund of:
r� v.er
Aetual A T�c
Origlnal
Conectetl
Abate/Ref�nd
Note: fTe wtel tan emount Oces not include acwetl interest, penalties, antl teas associateE vnih late enE/or OelinQUent taz paymenis. if
applica0le. Pleesecontedt�ecoun�ytreesure�fortullpaymen�inbrtnalion.
PatitioneYa Signature Oate
A56@SSOY60fD8pIM1YAEE8530!'SSI908fYf8 OdfB
Section rv: Decision of the County Commissioners
(MUSt ba compfl �e�tl ItSact�ion III Ooes not apWy)
WHEREAS, The Counry Commi,ssnioners of _ j" ITK r� County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawtulty
called regular meeting held on �/ �/� at which meeting there were present the following members:
N ' • hN�m oar.. vea� A /1 n O' A. /
with notice 6f�uch meeting and�dn oQpo um�ly( �to "b"e�p'resen( aving been given to _ x er and the Assessor
of said County and Assessor �/l�,�c�,�� eing presenf ot present) and
• - 0 Name
petitioner (6eingpresent otpresent), ndWHEREAS,Thesaid
Neme
County mmissioners have carefully considered the within petiUOn, and are fully ativised in relation thereto,
NOW 8E IT RESOLVED, That the Board agre doe f agree) with the recommendation of the assessor
and the petition be (approved—approved in paR denied) ith an abatement/refund as follows:
n /1
N_�
vear AssesseE value Texes Abate/Retuna
Chalr{1dFSOa of the Bo�FC of County C miasionaro' S
) /
I, � LCounty Clerk and Ex-oTficiu Clerk of the Board of unty C '
in for the aforementloned counry, do hereby certiTy that the above and foregoing order is hojn�th
record of the proceedings of the 8oard of County Commissioners. ��
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I h e here��nto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County � ^
this %�✓� dayof_��-J�]�f�'f ,�0�. CO d
Month Year
c roapurycounrycien�'
Note: Abatements greater than E7.000 per scheGule, per year, must be submittetl in tluplicate lo lhe Propeny Taz Administrator br review.
Seaion v: Action of the Praperty Tax Administretor
(FOr all abatemenb graner Man f1,000)
The aclion of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to the within petition, is hereby
❑ Approved Q Approved in part $ ❑ Denied for the following reason(s):
Secretary'sSignature PropertyTaxAdministrator's5ignaNre Oate
Sch# 364, Sherwin Enterprises LLC (Jennifer Sherwin), City of Aspen, Block 39,
East'/: of lot G, H, and I
The subject property is a 7,500 sq ft parcel improved with a small Historic cabin and an
even smaller outbuilding. The 2009 value is $4,541,300 and the owner's have
requested a revised value of $2,942,000. They have provided 1wo historic comparable
sales and used these to generate a gross $/sq ft which was then applied to the floor ,
area of the subject property. The assessor's o�ce feels that this doesn't adequately
account for the differences between the sale and subject property. The assessor's
office has provided 5 comparables that are of similar vintage and has made adjustments
for the differences between the sales and the subject. The final range of adjusted
values supports the assessor's 2009 actual value. Also included is a resolution
approving the redevelopment of the subject property. While this approval may have
lapsed in the meantime, it shows that the historic classification of the subject
improvements is not an absolute impediment to the redevelopment of the property.
PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES ��EtVED
FOR 205 S. THIRD STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611— SCHEDULE # R000364 ��Y �� 2���
Request to reduce value of this property to: $2,942,000 ����MY
I'd like to petition the value of my property at 205 S. Third Street. My property consists
of a historic log cabin built in the late 1880's as well as a run down shack that David
Bentley, a long-time Aspen resident, is currently using as his home. The houses can't be
torn down. Therefore, I don't agree that my lot can have the value currently listed in the
Pitkin County Records.
Properties are usually valued by a per square foot rate of the house. If you start with this
assumption, then the current value assumes a per squaze foot rate of $3,000 which is way
over the comps I've attached. I would argue that we need to drop the per square foot rate
to $2,000, for a total property value of $2,942,000.
In reviewing the sales during the period used to determine the taac value, there were no
sales in the immediate vicinity, so I needed to go outside of the neighborhood.
The attached compazes my property to two different properties that were sold within the
time period used to determine the tax value of said property.
918 W. Hallam — In comparing this property to mine, this property has a smaller lot but
the house is twice as large. The per squaze foot value of the house comes to
$1,240/squaze foot for a total time adjusted value of $3,175,374.
208 E. Hallam — In comparing this property to mine, this property has smaller lot but only
a slightly larger house than on my property. It sold for $1,203/square foot for a total
value of $2,194,920.
In looking at my property, we might consider a per squaze foot rate above $1,200/squaze
foot since I have more land and someone might be able to incorporate the cabin into a
larger house. Using $2,000/squaze feet as a base times the heated square feet of 1,471, we
get a total value of $2,942,000 which is well below the $4,541,300 you currently have
listed.
The historic nature of the buildings on my property limits the overall mazketability of this
land. I don't think this factor was sufficiently taken into account when the tax value was
determined.
Please reconsider the valuation of my property based on this information and reduce my
value to $2,942,000.
If you need to reach me, please call me at; 919-956-4472.
S' rely, �
�i/'""
ifer herwin
ember Manager
Sherwin Enterprises, LLC
�
N
wX
Q
r
LL
O
G
Z
�
LL
W
�
�
�
�- a
2 �
W
� o
Q �
m�
Q W
K m
Oj
� Z
Z
O J
I_' �
FO
wW
a=
Oy
LL �
Z LL
W
�
�
U
�
O
(9
z
K
O
a
a
�
N
a �
V A
N 7
V Q
' .) N
� m
N �
�
> L
_ �
7
�
N
u
.`
� a
m
A
N
d
R
LL �
m
N
y
�
W �o
7
Ci
m
N
N
� r
0
0
M
7
�
V
f6
c
m
c
n
y� v
U m m �
N �
N
N
3
A
>
M �
N
.10. `
�m v
� a
0
u in
7
v
�
�
c
r�r
N
N �
7 d
Q
d 7
Ta d
�" L
V
a m
0
a`
�
-o
t
�
�
�
0
N
V
c`�'>
0
0
�
d
�
c
�
T
E
C
O
a
a
7
N
O
.+
N
N
�
a
0
a
a d °
9 A N
m 7 �
O Q �
; y �
9 � w
m �
7 m
% L
�
�
�
0
N
� d �
N
A
�
N
A
H
d
w
m
A
7
Q
N
v o
r N
� rn
� V
� �
fh N
O O
rn o
rn o
M O
�
N N
� �
0 0
O O
N N
(O M
N N a
� J
0
t
� � a
N
d ^
7 `ry
o �
�
� N N m
� � � T
ri � v �
o -
L f/1
L V�/
� � � t
N � � 'O
N C
�N N
N d
� f0
f6 N
L �
� —
t
O �
N � N
t � O
�r ��
m
�� �
aci = aci
� E � E
0 0 0
rnU c�U
N �
o �
0 0
� �
O
O
O
N
�
N
N
0
��
d
w
m
.
m
�
C
N
d
N
N
L
N
d
E
N
w
m
.
m
7
S
W
O
0
O
N
w
�
M
O
0.'
w
m
�
A
!
d
a
E
�
O
d
�
RECE►VED
MAY � 12010
p+fkin ��
��r
:
Pazcel De[ail
1 of 3
http: //www.pi[kinassessor. org/assessor/Parcel. asp?Accoun[Number—...
Pitkin County Assessor/Treasurer
Parcel Detail Information
Assessor/Treasurer Property Seazch � Assessor Subset Query � Assessor Sales Search
Clerk & Recorder Reception Search
Basic BuildinQ Characteristics � Tax Information
Parcel De[ail � Value Detail � Sales Detail � ResidentiaVCommercial Improvement Detail
Land De[ail � PhotoQraphs
_
......... ..._... .._._...... . .
.._.. ..._... .... _.... .
_._.. ._.... , � .
��'.. Tax Area '�, Account Number �'��.. Parcel Number '��, 2009 Mill Levy '�..
001 R000364 273512465003 25.253 '
Owner Name and Address
'SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC
_
.C/O JENNIFER SHERWIN
1714 VISTA ST �� ���� ��� �
'' .___ _._. _... ...
DURHAM, NC 27701
Legal Description
Subdivision: CTTY AND TOWNSTTE OF ASPEN Block: 39 L,ot: H AND:- Lot: I AND '
'EAST HALF OF LOT G '
Location
_ __
__
Physical Address: ,205 S THIRD ST ASPEN '
'�.. Subdivision: '����.CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN �'��..
��.'�... .. . Land Acres: ���'0 .. ��.
.._ . ..... ..._ . ��... . .. ... ..... .__ . . '��.
. Laud Sq Ft: '��.7,500 �'��..
. �. ..... ..... ..�
.. __. .....
_...... .._. -----..._...
2010 Property Tax Valuation Information
���� '��.. Actual Value '�.. Assessed Value '���.
Land: 4,521,800 359,940!.
Improvements: 19,500 I,550 .
' TotaL•', 4,541,300'', 361,490
Sale Date:
� � � ��� SalePrice:�
Basic Building Characteristics
'��.. Number ot ResidenNal Buildings: 3
��
5/20/2010 1:51 Pb
Pazcel Detail
Copyright � 2008 Good Tums Software. All Rights Reserved.
Database & Web Design by Good Tums Software.
3 of 3
��..�,.,....�,�..�
http: //www.pi[kinassessor. org/assessodParcel. asp?AccountNumber—...
��
5/20/2010 1:51 PM
Appraiser Recommendation for an Abatement
Assessor Generated ❑
Taxpayer Generated !
To: Tom Isaac, Pitkin County Assessor
From: Micah Hayward
Date: 11 /18/2010
Petitioner: Sherwin Enterprises LLC/Jennifer Shervvin
Schedule #: R000364
Parcel #: 273512465003
The appraiser has completed a review of the referenced property, as of this date, and hereby
submits a recommendation as stated below.�
■ Deny
❑ Approve as Submitted
❑ AbatemenURefund Different than requested
Value Tax Amount
$9.128.72
value: NA
NA
The basis of this recommendation is:
Refund:
f►I_l
The petitioner filed an abatement requesting a 2009 value reduction based on the price per sq. ft. of 2
dissimilar sales with no adjustments for differences. Five comparable sales with adjustments were used in
the analysis by the Assessor's office and support the original 2009 value placed on the subject property.
Please see attached.
Chief Appraiser Approval:
Assessor Approval:
��
1�
`o
m
m
m
a
Location Map
V,
�lr1� �,��� �p� ���� C�� L�i ��
li�, I� � , �� �r��'� =-- � �
' � .,. u �.
r1 K ii �� ' i
• � � i�i pii �� Illll��i .
ff ,'►!R ,T,� t1/�� 1j �
1� � ;. „ ��j,�t_ f��� �� � �•�
!� .. : ' �l� ��� �� �i�i
��::.°.,: �. � �
� „�ii x . � � �i! ��rt ��#
�' �� �►+ �� ii�i •r,i� i r�� ,� � �
r
�e i� ,'•ir Iq ,
f ` �irl ,,�� �ii� ���i � i t�j r�ii
� ~rT ��� ���,�•_i _- �`LIJi;� p�
`��!�
'�t/ii
i� i i � i x �
i AdNe Layer: rore i Ac[bns ard Taok � f� O . ,�� 1 layen
`' !1:1nij �1 �7 �
.,� �r�f : � ��
��; f� �rrt;, � , �
ir���� �� �� �"' i„���� ��
���� � �� v�„'„'"! \
rr .�,,`;�; ,„; ;
�i� �ii r� ,: , ::
rii� i:�r �� `. -
�1• �� r � � ! � ��y a
� �, �i � .,, ♦
,�U � U � ='+ • 1'" ,i71, ��,,r,V-�
1I:? �� � 1{. �NI �� 'an
' � '� , � .. ' /�:,,; r',.]!
��
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRE3ERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TAE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20S S. THIRD STREET, THE EAST'/i OF LOT G,
LOT H, AND LOT I, BLOCK 39, CI11' AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
PARCEL ID#2735-124-6SA03
RESOLUTION NO. 47, SERIES OF 2001
WHEREAS, the applicants, Welter and Kitty Sherwin, represented by Mark Conklin and
Steve Danuff, have requested Final Development approval for the propercy located at 205
S. Third Sueet, the east Yz of Lot G, Lot H, and Lot I, Block 39, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Ttte property is listed on the "Inventory of HisWric Sites and StrucUues"; and
WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Ovalay Dialrict or development
involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Raview Standetds of
Sxtion 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Laad Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval,
namely:
Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing
and volume, scale and site plan with designated histaric structures located on the
parcel and with development on adjacent parcels whea the subject site is in a"H,"
Hiswric Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic
landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side ysid end
rear yard setbacks, extend inW the minimum distance b�wan buildings on the lot,
excced the allowed floor area by up to Sve hundred (500) square feet, or acceod the
allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, Fii'C may grant necessaty vaziances
aft� malang a finding that such vaziation is mom compatible in character with the
historic landmark and the nei8hbo*hood than would be development in accord with
a;mensional rcquicements. In no event shall variations putsuant w this Sxtion
excced those variations allowed under Soction 26.520.040(Bx2), for d�ached
accessory dwelling units, and
2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the
cheracter of the neighborhood of the percel proposed for development.
3. Standard: 'The proposed developmant enhances or does not detract from the
historic significance of deaignated hiatoric structures located on the parcel
proposed for development or on adjacent parcels.
4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or dcea not diminish from the
architectural charactet or integrity of a desigaated historic shucture or part
thereof; and
III�%I�II�III�������� 461 �zo� ie:�za
SILVIR DMIS PITKIN COIWTY CO q �6.00 D 0.00
-`�
WI;EREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 10, 2001, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended aPPruval of the
projxt with conditions; aad
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 10, 2001, the Historic Ptesen+adon
Commiasion considered the application, found tt►e application w mcet the standards and
to be conaistent wit6 the "City of Aspcn Historic Preservation Deaiga Guidelines" and
approved the application by a vote of 6 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That Final Development for the pmperty located at 205 S. Third Stroet, the east'h of Lot
G, Lot H, and Lot I, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen be approved with the
following conditions:
1. HPC must approve all exterior materials.
2. The applicant may use clad or windowa on the new addition. HPC would prefa
wood windows.
3. Reduce the siu of the dormer to the minimum necessary to protect the entry.
4. Use exterior doors that are in keeping with the style of the doors found on the rest
of the house (paneled with a half lite J
5. Redesiga the cricket to profile of the exiating roof ridgelines.
6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the
appinved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff end monitor
when the information is available.
7. No elemenats are to be added to the itistoric house that did not previously exist. No
existing e�cterior materials other than what has been spxi5cally approved herein
may be removed without the approval of staffand monitor.
8. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting
fixtures.
9. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without 5rst
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
10. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies af the HPC
resoludon applicable to this project The contractor must submit a letter
addreased to HPC staff as part of the building perinit application indicating that all
condidons of approval are lawwn and understood and must meet with the Historic
Preservation Officer prior w applying for the building permit.
11. The General Contiactor and/or Superintendent shall be required W obtain a
specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at ita regular meetinE on t6e lOt6 dsy of
October, 2001.
,���IMOIII�IIo1111��IRllls Ns�� neeNie:iza
SSLVIR UAVIS PIM
q4
Approved as to Form:
� S 1L
Dsvi'd Hoeter, Assiatant ity Attorney
Approved as to content:
ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Suz d, C6 [r
ATTEST• �
`,'� � ,, �(,/
Kathy S' and, Chief Deputy C
I������������ �? i zee4 ie:�:a
6ILVIR OpVIS PlTKlN COUNTY CO R 10.ii D!.0!
�S
IU� _..
NOTiCE OF DETERMINATION
ON PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND �F TAXES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PITKiN COUNTY, COLORAD�
Date: December 13, 201 Q
Petitioner: Sherwin En#e�rises, LLC Schedute No. R400364
Jennifer Sherwin
1714 Vista Street
Durham, North Caroiina 27701
Dear Petitioner(s):
Pursuant to CRS 39-10-1 i4, you have requested that the Board of County Cammissioners (B�CC)
consider your petition for abatement or refund of taxes
• At a rneeting held on December 8, 2010, it was the decision of the BOCC to :
� Approve abatemeni as requested
� Approve a partial abatement
� Deny the petition for abatement
Further appea! procedare_ 1f the Soard of Caunty Commissioners {CRS 39-�0-114(1}y ar the
state properky tax administrator (CRS 39-2-116) denies the petition for refund ar abatement of taxes in
whole or in part, the petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessrrtent Appeals (1313 Sherman St, Room
315, Denver, CO 80203, 3Q3-866-5880) pursuant to the provisions of CRS 39-2-125 (b) and (c} within 34
days from date o# the BOCC decision. For fu�ther infflrmation regarding the Baard of Assessment
Appeals you can visit their website @http://www.dola.colorado.gov/baa.
• Reiund, if appticabie: ff an abatement petition was approved in fuN or in part, the assessor will adjust
his records accordingty and the treasurer will process a refund if the taxes were previously paid.
glbocc\boe�abatementdenialnotice2010.doc