Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.700 Gibson Ave Griffith.A140-00 "'"" CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A <;i.'-.c A 140-00 2737-073-00019 Griffith Property Code Interpretation 700 Gibson Avenue Chris Bendon Code Interpretation Highlander III, LLC, Leonard Oates 11/21/00 Interpretation Rendere 8/3/01 J, Lindt f"". r" :' t>.rP\\Lk.-~ ' ~bev- 7;-0\ ~ ckb-~i V\€&. e~ l6!- + \ ~ t'dw..y~ i-,,(~ 10-+1- I~ \~~wk- + \~'dVlYh;' \)c StY- ,-,. r-') ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.480,030(A)(2)(g) EFFECTIVE DATE: November 21, 2000 WRITTEN BY: M'PROVED'Y~ ~..;yy-' WITH COPY TO: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director John Worcester, City Attorney SUMMARY: This interpretation of the Land Use Code determines that the limitation of development rights on parcels created through the Lot Split Subdivision Exemption process only restricts development allowed by such exemption and does not preclude a land owner from applying for further development rights pursuant to the Land Use Code, The phrase "without further development approvals" should be considered an operative extension of the limiting language of section 26.480,030(A)(2)(g), With regards to the Lipkin TDRs (those transferable development rights created during the Smuggler Mobile Home Park deed restriction process), it is my understanding that the transferable right exempts the development of one single-family residence (per each TDR) from all provisions of the growth management system, including all mitigations, reviews, and exactions thereof, The TDRs are essentially "further development approvals" that can be used on any parcel in Aspen where such development is consistent with the zoning, Therefore, I believe a Lipkin TDR may be used to develop a parcel beyond the particular limitation placed on the land as a condition of the lot split exemption inasmuch as the additional density is allowed by zoning, I do believe, however, that in instances where further development approvals (including potential use of a Lipkin TDR) can be foreseen during a lot split review, such possibility should be made apparent to reviewing authorities and neighbors and introduced into the public record, BACKGROUND: This request to interpret the Land Use Code was made by Leonard M, Oates on behalf of Highlander III, LLC, contract purchaser of the "Griffith Property," 700 Gibson Avenue, City of Aspen, The letter requesting a code interpretation is appended here as Exhibit A. The subject property is located outside of the Original Aspen Townsite, r-" tJ The Land Use Code provision in question is a criteria of the Lot Split Subdivision Exemption and reads as follows: g. Maximum potential buildoutfor the two (2) parcels created by a 10/ split shall no/ exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single- family home, DISCUSSION: The Lot Split and Historic Lot Split provisions of the Land Use Code are intended to allow limited growth to occur on large parcels without the rigors of the entire growth management review, However, only one exemption is allowed for any particular fathering parcel and a subsequent lot split exemption is precluded on a lot resulting from a lot split exemption, Further development rights may only be approved through the regular process, While the owner of a lot created by a Lot Split exemption may not seek another such exemption, this limitation does not extend to other provisions ofthe Land Use Code, The particular limitation is only perpetual to the extent that subsequent approvals are not sought or are not approved, With respect to the Lipkin TDRs, they exempt a single-family residence (one per TDR) from the provisions of the Growth Management Quota System. This exemption extends to all provisions of the GMQS for the new residence and no mitigations, exactions, reviews, etc, are required, These TDRs are effective development rights that can be used on any parcel in town in which the zoning allows for such density, This exemption from GQMS, however, does not extend to other requirements of development in general such as Floor Area limitations, Residential Design Standards, and applicable tap and impacts fees, In the case where Lipkin TDRs are used on an existing parcel created by a Lot Split, a document accepting use of the TDR should be recorded in the real estate records clarifying any contradictory language of the particular lot split plat and/or Ordinance, This is due to the absence of any Land Use Code provision for landing these TDRs and the possible confusion that may surface years later. In the case where a Lot Split application forecasts the use of one of these TDRs or the potential for further development approvals to be sought, that information should be made apparent and introduced into the public record and any necessary language be included in the Ordinance and plat that identifies the possibility of additional development rights being sought. This parcel ofIand, the Griffith parcel, lies outside of the Original Aspen Townsite and is therefore only eligible for a lot split exemption from subdivision, not eligible for a growth management exemption for development on the newly created lot. Please refer to an r"I r'\ ~'1 interpretation I rendered regarding Lot Split provisions of the Subdivision and Growth Management regulations, attached, APPEAL OF DECISION: Pursuant to Section 26.306 ofthe Land Use Code, an interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Director may be appealed to the Aspen City Council pursuant to Section 26,316. This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Councilor as a separate agenda item, ~ LEONARD M. OATES AICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TED Q. GAADENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY ~ LAW OFFICES ~F OATE;:" KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWff).Z, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 5:33 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 TELEPHONE (970) 920.1700 FACSIMilE (970) 920-1121 Imoasst@okglaw.com OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM JOHN T. KELLY November 3, 2000 Ms. Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Via Hand Delivery Re: Request for Planning Director Interpretation (Griffith Property Dear Ms, Woods, The following inquiry is posed to you as a Request for Planning Director Interpretation pursuant to 26.306 of the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen: Maya parcel which results from a lot split of property made pursuant to 26.480.030A.2 thereafter apply to be developed other than as permitted by the lot split, i.e. may such parcel be considered for a change in zoning, say to AH, or to apply to use TDRs (the original so-called Lipkin TDRs) so as to increase density on such resulting parcel to that which would be permitted by underlying zoning; or, is development on the resulting parcel forever limited by the constraints of 26.480,030A,2g? The foregoing assumes that the resulting parcel meets all other Code requirements (i.e. dimensional requirements and the like). The specific inquiry is made in connection with the Griffith Property adjacent to Hunter Creek Condominiums and Lone Pine Road, The inquiry is made on behalf of Highlander III, LLC, contract purchaser of that property. Preliminary discussions relating to this matter have taken place between Stan Clauson (Highlander's Planning Consultant) and Chris Bendon. Sincerely, cc: Chris Bendon (via hand delivery) LMO/kaf OATES, ~"EZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. 1\ / / J ;' ---0/)/, 1/ //! ;l- ";::"\ / /!J' /./' j/ i //, .(/J /.. B ,,-,.'c.' /' :' /'VJ y, .' , Leonard M, Oates' RECE1VED C:\DatalCflltlltsiHighlanderlll,LLC\llr. Ju!ieAnnWocids 11.l00.wpd ~,I:: r ,< /, 'i"i <;. "'A'sPEN I PiTKIN COMMUN1TY D':\lELOPMENT . .'~ I'"'. ~ JURISDICTION: APPLICA~E CODE SECTION: '~" -1j:)j:) 1)>0 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY Cb, .;\- Vr- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT it/#u ,....,,/ .....'0 Itf?r, ~ CODE INTERPRETATION 0",,,_ l.9c C/?r, '<-<Co', ..;g c-"..: "'~~Jv ,s,cS 7'o~ ;y <:'c/q, Section 26.470,070(1) GMQS Exemptions - Lot Split, Section 26.480,030 (A)(2) (Subdivision- Exemption - Lot Split) City of Aspen EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1999 WRITTEN BY: Chris Bendon, Planner 9~~~ DATE: '1/1<f/J,9 APPROVED BY: SUMMARY: This Land Use Code interpretation concludes that the Lot Split Exemption provisions of Growth Management Quota System do not extend to lots outside, or lots partially within, the Original Mapped Aspen Townsite. BACKGROUND: Stan Clauson requested an interpretation of the Land Use Code to determine iflots that are outside in the Original Mapped Aspen Townsite qualify for a Lot Split Exemption under Growth Management. Sunny Vann requested an interpretation of the land Use Code to determine iflots that are partially within the Original Mapped Aspen Townsite qualify for a Lot Split Exemption under Growth Management, DISCUSSION: The Original Aspen Townsite is not a term defined in the definitions section of the Land Use Code, However, language within the Subdivision Chapter, Section 26.480,020, describes an Aspen Townsite Lot as land depicted on the Aspen incorporation plat of record, dated 1880, The Townsite and the original description of land by block and lot used in this incorporation plat is still used to describe land within the City of Aspen in reference to this 1880 plat. In fact, areas since annexed to the City of Aspen are described as additions and referenced by the name of the annexation (i.e, Eames Addition). , The Lot Split Subdivision Exemption provisions ofthe Land Use Code, Section 26.480,030(A)(2), allows lot splits contingent oil seven criteria. None of these criteria require the fathering parcel be in the Original Townsite. """j A The Growth Management Exemptionprovisions for Lot Split parcels, Section 26.470,070(I), allows exemptions for the development of one detached residential dwelling on a vacant lot within the orizinal mapped Aspen Townsite, formed by a 101 split granted subsequent 10 November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 26.480. 030(A)(2), These are discrete land use reviews although both of these reviews are by City CounciL Approval for one land use review, however, does not grant or even imply approval for another land use review, In other words, approval for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption does not grant approval for a Gro'l'tth Management Exemption even though City Council has the authority to grant both reviews. Furthermore, approval for one type of land use review by an authorized approving Board does not grant or imply approval for a land use review that is not authorized to be granted by that same, or any other, Board, In other words, City Council's authorization to grant a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption approval outside of the Original Townsite does not require them to approve a Growth Management Exemption on the same lot. ' The term "within" is used in the Land Use Code to describe vacant lots to which City Council may grant Growth Management Exemptions - vacanllot within Ihe Original Aspen Mapped Townsite, The term "within" is not a term defined within the Land Use Code but commonly means "encompassed by" or "in the inner part of' when used in both written and spoken English. Mr, Vann raises a question regarding a Lot Split application which may have been processed erroneously, City Council approved a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split and a Growth Management Exemption for a new dwelling unit to be located on a newly created lot split parcel at 934 West Francis Street in December 1997, The staff memo did not conclude that the subject property was only partially within the Townsite. The memorandum and approving Ordinance did, however, state that the application met all requirements of the Land Use Code. Upon closer inspection, a portion of one of the newly created lots was not entirely in the original Townsite. The issue of the property being partially outside of the Townsite was overlooked and Mr, Vann is correct in his assumption that the Growth Management Exemption' was wrongly approved, INTERPRETATION: Based on the language reference above, I interpret the term "Original Mapped Aspen Townsite" to mean lands within the boundaries of Aspen's incorporation plat of 1880, The Subdivision Exemption criteria for a Lot Split do not require the fathering parcel to be within Original Mapped Aspen Townsite. However, the Growth Management exemption provisions for Lot Split parcel only apply to vacant lots within this boundary, These are discrete reviews, Therefore, it is my interpretation of these code sections that a lot split outside of the original Townsite may be approved by the City Council, however, additional residential units must be granted an allotment through the GMQS scoring and competition procedures, as there exists no exemption procedure. r'\ f"'\ Lastly, it is my interpretation of the Land Use Code that the Growth Management Exemption provision for vacant lots within the Original Mapped Aspen Townsite created by a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption only extend to those lots wholly within this boundary and not partially within the boundary, APPEAL OF DECISION Pursuant to Section 26.306 of the Land Use Code, an interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Director may be appealed to the Aspen City Council pursuant to Section 26.3 I 6, This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Councilor as a separate agenda item, LEONARD M. OATES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B. KELLY ~ . LAW OFFICES OF r-\ OATb;S,KNEZEVICH& GARDENsvvakTZ, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION . THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN: COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 Imoasst@okglaw.com OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL FEiGENBAUM .' JOHN T. KELLY November 3,2000 Ms. Julie Ann Woods Community Deve]opment Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Via Hand Delivery Re: Request for Planning Director Interpretation (Griffith Property Dear Ms, Woods, The following inquiry is posed to you as a Request for Planning Director Interpretation pursuant to 26.306 of the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen: Maya parcel which results from a lot split of property made pursuant to 26.480.030A2 thereafter apply to be developed other than as permitted by the lot split, i.e. may such parcel be considered for a change in zoning, say to AH, or to apply to use TDRs (the original so-called Lipkin TDRs) so as to increase density on such resulting parcel to that which would be permitted by underlying zoning; or, is development on the resulting parcel forever limited by the constraints of 26.480.030A2g? The foregoing assumes that the resulting parcel meets all other Code requirements (i.e. dimensional requirements and the like). The specific inquiry is made in connection with the Griffith Property adjacent to Hunter Creek Condominiums and Lone Pine Road, The inquiry is made on behalf of Highlander III, LLC, contract purchaser of that property. Preliminary discussions relating to this matter have taken place between Stan Clauson (Highlander's Planning Consultant) and Chris Bendon, SinC(lrely , OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. By "",jJ" @j; Leonard M. Oates \ cc: Chris Bendon (via hand delivery) LMO/kaf RECEIVED t.,i C:\Data\Clienls\Highlander III, LLCILtr. Julie Ann Woods 11.3.00.wpd NOV 0 3 fl;<:; I ASPEN I PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I'"', ^ , 7 ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: APPLiCABLE CODE SECTION: City of Aspen . EFFECTIVE DATE: Section 26.480,030(A~~!!,)~PITKIN . COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November'l1,2000, ( WRITTEN BY: , Chris B'endon, Senior Plaimer APPROVED .BY: Julie Ann Wood's, - Community Development Director WITH COpy TO: John Worcester, City Attorney SUMMARY: , '. " . .' ,.' This interpretation ofthe Land Use Code determines that the limitation of development rights on parcels cre~ted'through the Lot Split Subdivision Exemption process only. restricts dev!'lI'oplIJent allowed by such exemption and does not preclude a land owner from applying for further development rights pursuant to the Land Use Code, The phrase "without furth~r development approvlus" should be considered an operative extension of the limiting language of section 26.480,030(A)(2)(g), . .. '. " . ( .' With regards to the LipkinTDRs (those transferable,development rights cre~ted during the Smuggler Mobile HOme Park deed restriction process), it is my understanding thatthe . transferable right exempts the development of one single-family residence (per each '. TDR) from all provisions of the groWth management system, including all mitigations, 'reviews, and exactions thereof. The TDRs are essentially "further development approvals'" that can be used on any parcel in Aspen where such development is consistent with th~ zoning, Therefore, I believe a Lipkin TDR may be used to develop a parcel , beyond the particular limitation placed on the lahd as a condition, of the lot split exemption inasmuch as the additional density is allowed by zoning, . I do believe, however, that in instance's where further development approvals (including potential use of a Lipkin TDR) can be foreseen during a lot split review, such possibility should be made apparent to revie~ng authorities and neighbors and introduced into the , public record, ' BACKGROUND: This request to interpret the Land Use Code was made by Leonard M.Oates on behalf df Highlander III, LLC, contract purchaser of the "Griffith Property," 700 Gibson Avenue, City of Aspen, The subject property is located outside of the Originai Aspen Townsite, 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439 Printed on Re<:yded Paper ^ i} The Land Use Code provision in question is a criteria of the Lot Split Subdivision Exemption and reads as follows: g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot splil shall nol exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single- family home, DISCUSSION: The Lot Split and Historic Lot Split provisions of the Land Use Code are intended to allow limited growth to occur on large parcels without the rigors of the entire growth management review, However, only one exemption is allowed for any particular fathering parcel and a subsequent lot split exemption is precluded on a lot resulting from a lot split exemption. Further development rights may only be approved through the regular process, While the oWner of a lot created by a Lot Split exemption may not seek another such exemption, this limitation does not extend to other provisions of the Land Use Code. The particular limitation is only perpetual to the extent that subsequent approvals are not sought or are not approved, With respect to the Lipkin TDRs, my understanding of these transferable development rights is that they exempt a single-family residence (one per TDR) from the provisions of the Growth Management Quota System. I further understand that this exemption extends to all provisions of the GMQS for the new residence and no mitigations, exactions, reviews, etc, are required, These TDRs are effective development rights that can be used on any parcel in town in which the zoning allows for such density, This exemption from GQMS, however, does not extend to other requirements of development in general such ! as Floor Area limitations, Residential Design Standards, and applicable tap and impacts fees, In the case where Lipkin TDRs are used on an existing parcel created by a Lot Split, I suggest a document accepting use of the TDR be recorded in the real estate records clarifying any contradictory language of the particular lot split plat and/or Ordinance, I suggest this due to the absence of any Land Use Code provision for landing these TDRs and the possible confusion that may surface years later. In the case where a Lot Split application forecasts the use of one of these TDRs or the potential for further development approvals to be sought, I suggest that information be made apparent and introduced into the public record and any necessary language be included in the Ordinance and plat that identifies the possibility of additional development rights being sought. This parcel of land, the Griffith parcel, lies outside of the Original Aspen Townsite and is therefore only eligible for a lot split exemption from subdivision, not eligible for a growth management exemption for development on the newly created lot. Please refer to an 1"', r-. \" '-, interpretation I rendered regarding Lot Split provisions of the Subdivision and Growth Management regulations, attached. APPEAL OF DECISION: Pursuant to Section 26,306 of the Land Use Code, an interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Director may be appealed to the Aspen City Council pursuant to Section 26.316, This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Councilor as a separate agenda item,