Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Block 46- lots k - o- Behrendt sub.29-81131D L14.LA �'s rC- 6 (Ael) N,It) ry ti 'T-a-►JA1E)�, g/ " 5 10 0 No. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET 1 V City of Aspen ` 90 1. DATE SUBMITTED: / e I STAFF: 2. APPLICANT: IW)h l 41 3. REPRESENTATIVE: t, I�/, 4. PROJECT NAME: / fj 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: - This CYpph QcL4i D,, - %s A uk , �cce0►en not Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin P.U.D. Exception 8040 Greenline �?X,evV Special Review Exemption View Plane Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use HPC Residential Bonus Other 7. REFERRALS: XAttorney Engineering Dept. Housing Water City Electric 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: Sanitation District Fire Marshal Parks Holy Cross Electric Mountain Bell School District Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas State Highway Dept. Other 9. DISPOSITION: / P & Z Approved ✓ Denied Date _,L� approval of the requested lot split conditioned upon the granting of an easement, from the southeasterly corner of the house 15.8 feet to the northeasterly corner of that section of the structure along the newly -outlines lot ling of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet is maintained and nonconformity is not increased. In addition, a covenant should be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build within 5 feet of that easement on Lot M. A second condition should be that if either of the present non -conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by the Code for the R-6 zone. Council V/ Approved " Denied Date Z Z } ��7a�i, �L-'-�►�►��v� � 0.r`_�n-��. T -�T�> � � �u���r� C'.0+'►tQi .7A GoVe_V%a✓X` 1S T JW4 1 w'► N S 10. ROUTING: .;� Attorney ✓ Building i Zngineering Other 4c -;o� L Sa �S vw� ��crc6Sac�, r— KO- 4-o 0 0 0 u MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Behrendt Subdivision Exception (Lot Split) DATE: June 15, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORIA: Zoning: R-6 Location: Lots K, L, M, N and 0, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen Applicant's Subdivision exception for purposes of a lot split forming two Request: parcels - 1 - Lots K, L, M; 2 - Lots N and 0 Referral Agency Engineering Department Comments: 1. Re-establishment of the old lot line between lots M and N will increase the non -conformity of the structure on Lots N and 0 by creating a new non -conforming sideyard setback. 2. It is not clear from the application how many dwelling units are in each structure. There is a possibility that this subdivision would also create non -conformities in terms of lot area per unit. 3. Any approval should be contingent on resubmittal of the improvement survey with all applicable certificates and signature blocks. City Attorney I make the following observations concerning the code: 1. Section 20-3(s) defines subdivision as a "division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of owner- ship, or for building or other development or for street use". The Behrendt application makes no indication of the "purpose" for which the subdivision is sought and I, therefore, ques- tion the appropriateness of the application at this time. 2. Section 20-4(c) indicates that parcels of single ownership are merged if they are singly owned "on the effective date of this section". Strictly construed, it would appear that the ordinance merging the properties does not have applica- tion if the respective properties were acquired after the effective date, 1975. 3. Section 20-4(d) appears to allow the owner to apply for an exemption from the definition of subdivision pursuant to Section 20-19(b). Under Section 20-19(b), following a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council may exempt a particular division of land from the definition of subdivision when, in the judgment of the City Council, such division is not within the intent and purpose of the subdivision chapter. 4. Under Section 20-3(s)(5) the term subdivision shall not apply to a division of land or interest in land "by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security interest". It thus appears that financing arrangements calling for the encumbrance of land are outside the subdivision definition and should not be affected by the subdivision definition. Memo: Behrendt Subdivision Exception (Lot Split) Page Two June 15, 1981 Generally, I see no reason why the Behrendt parcels, if in fact it appears that the merger doctrine is applicable, should not be exempted from the definition of subdivision. On the other hand, I am curious as to the need for an exemption under the circumstances. Planning Office Section 20-5(c) of the Aspen Code states that "no lot or parcel Review: of land, nor any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to create a new nonconforming use." Section 24-13.2(c) states that "if any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by this Code for the district in which such land is located," In order not to increase the nonconformity, the minimum side yard must be 5 feet which cannot be accomplished if the lots are divided along original lot lines. An easement must be granted for the affected section. Legal counsel for the applicant expressed a strong desire for the two lots to remain standard sizes of 6000 square feet and 9000 square feet. The lot split is requested for re -financing purposes, because of separate finance arrange- ments on the two parcels. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends approval of the requested lot Recommendations: split conditioned upon the granting of an easement, from the southeasterly corner of the house 15.8 feet to the northeasterly corner of that section of the structure along the newly -outlined lot line of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet is maintained and nonconformity is not increased. In addition, a covenant should be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build within 5 feet of that easement on Lot M. A second condition should be that if either of the present non -conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by the Code for the R-6 zone. P & Z Action: Approval of the requested lot split conditioned upon the granting of an easement, from the southeasterly corner of the house 15.8 feet to the northeasterly corner of that section of the structure along the newly -outlined lot line of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet is main- tained and nonconformity is not increased. In addition, a covenant should be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build within 5 feet of that easement on Lot M. A second condition should be that if either of the present non -conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by the Code for the R-6 zone. Council Action: Should Council concur with the Planning Office and P & Z's recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to approve the requested lot split conditioned upon: 1. The granting of an easement, from the southeasterly corner of the house 15.8 feet to the northeasterly corner of that section of the structure along the newly -outlined lot line of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet is maintained and nonconformity is not increased. Memo: Behrendt Subdivision Exception (Lot Split) Page Three June 15, 1981 2. In addition, a covenant should be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build within 5 feet of that easement on Lot M. 3. That if either of the present non -conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period of more than a year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by the Code for the R-6 zone." _ ..___._..._..__ approval of the requested lot split conditioned upon the granting of an easement, from the southeasterly corner of the house 15.8 feet to the northeasterly corner of that section of the structure along the newly --outlined lot ling of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet is maintained and nonconformity is not increased. In addition, a covenant should be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build within 5 feet of that easement on Lot M. A second condition should be that if either of the present non -conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by the Code for the R-6 zone. Recorded at r (l A Reception No z- ' � q- I BOOK c�U PA5Ev. SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDOMINIUMIZING THE PROPERTY AT 322 WEST HYMAN AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT (hereinafter referred to as "Behrendt") is the owner of a parcel of real property described as: Lots N and 0, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (commonly known as 322 W. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado); and WHEREAS, Behrendt has requested an exception from the full subdivision process and from the requirements of subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for the purpose of condominiumizing said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting on June 8, 1987, determined that Behrendt's request for such condominiumization was appropriate and granted the same, subject however, to the conditions described hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does determine that the Application for Exception From the Full Subdivision Process and the requirements of subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for the purpose of condominiumizing the property described above is proper and hereby grants said exceptions, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exceptions are expressly conditioned upon: 1. Behrendt's recording of a Condominium Plat consistent with Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code designating the access easements for the two (2) staircases which cross the West boundary of the property, and a location for the dumpster to be used for trash collection from said condominium units in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Attorney. 2. The building being condominiumized shall be physically upgraded in accordance with the Building Department's recommendations as set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin Regional Building Department Memo from John Ostwald to Jim Wilson dated February 11, 1987, concerning this property. DATED this -5 day of October, 1987. H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT 6 ,� � / By :' - �. ,�.1 Gideon Kaufman, hi atto ey-in fac (SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTINUED ON PAGE 2) - 1 - eooK 550 ME315 CITY OF A4PI�N, a u cipal corporation W LLIAM L. S71RLING, M or ,�LP ROVED AS TO FORM: AUL J.� DDUNE, Ci, y Attorney I, KATHRYN S. KOCH, do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Proces§ for the Purpose of Condominiumizing the Property at 3��E.d�o�y Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, was considered and �4p the Aspen City Council and that the Mayor, Wij'iiadi L. Stirling, was authorized to execute the same on lgehal€` the City of Aspen. • ,�i' KATHRYN KOCH, City Cle�',',c��s�; STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The fore o'ng instrument was acknowledged before me this j5'�day of ' �.._� 1987, by William Stirling as Mayor, and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the,,t.c ' t ASPEN, State of Colorado, a municipal corporations ein behalf✓J, of said corporation. r.� j:;i..i 0 WITNESS my hand and official seal. . My commission expires: ,",• Ct?F(it?i�5 3tt 2~�,r�3 �+�'�'f'e^.+Y�+�* �. ��< N tary Pu is STATE OF COLORADO ) v ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /2 Tday of ��7d1��� , 1987, by GIDEON KAUFMAN as attorney -in -fact for H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT, on behalf of said principal. 4. WITNESS my hand and official seal. .,..,My commission expires: �o N ry Pu lic F " O pr `�� . excstmt/COND03 =WM • It 0 0 • • MEM09A��UO `-fo %�S�SLY'1 �I0.v�v�i✓� �7j�Y[��- C:�YYlvvtiSSiQ--i'1 �• '�+-�i �ren�+- j,�.�.bc� 1 v 1 S I o-rA Xc4�'o-yt 60-F- 4/'14 �a� ��yipn I �0, 1981 4b- %�S. �V1 �y�,SL.Y-7 ✓ _ �,�a..vi lit - 0 0� lo-I� /V aigd n"4-) -7S"d Q I s Cv-V-A tJo tic 44 aL;o Cre a illo/1-C )k'1 AaJ o� coAs I make the following observations concerning the code: 1. Section 20-3 (s) defines subdivision as a "d iv is ion ' for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of owner- ship, or for building or other development or for street use". The Behrendt application makes no indication of the "purpose" for which the subdivision is sought and I, therefore, ques- tion the appropriateness of the application at this time. 2. Section 20-4 (c) indicates that parcels of single ownership are merged if they are singly owned "on the effective date of this section". Strictly construed, it would appear that the ordinance merging the properties does not have application if the respective properties were acquired after the effective date, 1975. 3. Section 20-4(d) appears to allow the owner to apply for an exemption from the definition of subdivision pursuant to Sec- tion 20-19(b). Under Section 20-19(b), following a recoia- mendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council may exempt a particular division of land from the definition of subdivision when, in the judgment of the City Council, such division is not within the intent and purpose of the subdi- vision chapter. 4. Under Section 20-3(s)(5) the term subdivision shall not apply to a division of land or interest in land "by a lien, mort- gage, deed of trust or any other security interest". It thus appears that financing arrangements calling for the encum- brance of land are outside the subdivision definition and should not be affected by the subdivision definition. Generally, I see no reason why the Behrendt parcels, if in fact it appears that the merger doctrine is applicable, should not be exempted from the definition of subdivision. On the other hand, I am curious as to the need for an exemption under the circums- tances. 6 Qnn�►n pp tovior l -moms II 0 r a, r-e_d Q i `4 ,9 -. - 1 uJ k o (Q-- o n VIA GL:S c 0. v ono o ..,�-.v-. �r v . yr , w�. • - - � - - - , � . Ct.V flr l�fr� O4- �ce-a�� A -R6jqc,bJ,q -1 k -kLW( C�� 7 1 i OL-C-, ►sue E-� -4/off OLI j-1RR;` ��hdQra q000 r �� TLz- �I4nnI' iy� YD r/QC1A++�h^E'HdS I�U0.� cr �*��'�`',`,��`qN,p y�C� �0/ZfJ�/' +�Y72L -: �o +Lq� V\- Ire Tly �,d �on�.s s� ,.tdia� 0.-da�t�d w � ..,,+mot �-o-w. Lo S-Q- (200�j scs Gaa s -Fo fi °� ren MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Behrendt Subdivision Exception (Lot Split) DATE: May 29, 1981 Zoning: R-6 Location: Lots K, L, M, N and 0, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen rI Referral Agency Comments: Engineering Department 1. Re-establishment of the old lot line between lots M and N will increase the non -conformity of the structure on Lots N and 0 by creating a new non -conforming sideyard setback. 2. It is not clear from the application how many dwelling units are in each structure. There is a possibility that this subdivision would also create non -conformities in terms of lot area per unit. 3. Any approval should be contingent on resubmittal of the improvement survey with all applicable certificates and signature blocks. City Attorney I make the following observations concerning the code: 1. Section 20-3(s) defines subdivision as a "division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of owner- ship, or for building or other development or for street use The Behrendt application makes no indication of the "purpose" for which the subdivision is sought and I, therefore, ques- tion the appropriateness of the application at this time. 2. Section 20-4(c) indicates that parcels of single ownership are merged if they are singly owned "on the effective date of this section". Strictly construed, it would appear that the ordinance merging the properties does not have applica- tion if the respective properties were acquired after the effective date, 1975. 3. Section 20-4(d) appears to allow the owner to apply for an exemption from the definition of subdivision pursuant to Section 20-19(b). Under Section 20-19(b), following a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council may exempt a particular division of land from the definition of subdivision when, in the judgment of the City Council, such division is not within the intent and purpose of the subdivision chapter. 4. Under Section 20-3(s)(5) the term subdivision shall not apply to a division of land or interest in land "by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security interest". It thus appears that financing arrangements calling for the encumbrance of land are outside the subdivision definition a-1.d should not be affected by the subdivision definition. Generally, I see no reason why the Behrendt parcels, if in fact it appears that the merger doctrine is applicable, should not be exempted from the definition of subdivision. On the Memo: Behrendt Subdivision Exception (Lot Split) Page Two May 29, 1981 other hand, I am curious as to the need for an exemption under the circumstances. Planning Office Section 20-5(c) of the Aspen Code states that "no lot or parcel Review: of land, nor any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to create a new nonconforming use." Section 24-13.2(c) states that "if any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than one the year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to regulations specified by this Code for the district in which such land is located," In order not to increase the nonconformity, the minimum side yard must be 5 feet which cannot be accomplished if the lots are divided along original lot lines. An easement must be granted for the affected section. Legal counsel for the applicant expressed a strong desire for the two lots to remain standard sizes of 6000 square feet and 9000 square feet. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends approval of the requested lot from the Recommendations: split conditioned upon the granting of an easement, the house 15.8 feet to the northeasterly southeasterly corner of that section of the structure along the newly -outlined ' corner of lot ling of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet A41 is maintained and nonconformity is not increased. In addition, from the owner a covenant should be attached with a commitment not to build within 5 feet of that easement on Lot M. A second condition should be that if either of the present non -conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a such period of more than one year, any subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by the Code for the R-6 zone, ARTICLE XIII. NONCONFORMING USES C� AND STRUCTURES 2q Sec. 24-13.1. Intent. I I Within the districts established by this zoning code, or amendments thereto that may be adopted, there exist lots, structures, and uses of land and structures, which were lawfully established before this code was passed or amended, but which would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the terms of this code or future amendment. It is the intent of this article to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. It is the further intent of this article that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district..(Ord. No. 11-1975, § 1; Ord. No. 16-1980, § 3) 2Y — Sec. 24-13.2. Nonconforming uses of land (or land with minor structures only). 3 Z Where at the time of the passage of this zoning code, or amendment thereof, lawful use of land exists which would not be permitted by the regulations imposed by this code, the use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided: (a) No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to occupy greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code; (b) No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code; (c) If any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by this code for the district in which such land is located; (d) No additional structure not conforming to the requirements ec on withf this chapter shall be such nonconforming use of land. ed in connection A nonconforming use shall not be changed to a use of a lower or less restrictive classification, but such nonconform- ing use may be changed to another use of 1 eOs d e or o. higher classification. (Ord. No. 11-1975, § 16-1980, § 3) I�IC�'i 77 ✓ 1'� ��-f -�- V> -��"1- i / l.w �# I S Q 4 ✓ V--c VVA C) %4 Q- I ot— �du Min, rkjul� Sec. 24-13.6. Nonconforming lots of record. (a) Where, at the effective date of the adoption of this or any code or amendment hereto, a lot of record was in separate ownership and cannot meet the minimum require- ments for area or width, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record provided: (1) Such lot is in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership; (2) This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width, or both, that are generally applicable in the district, provided that yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area or width, or both, of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which the lot is located. Variances of yard require- ments shall be obtained only through action of the board of adjustment. (b) In residential district where two-family or multiple -fam- ily dwellings are permitted, the requirement for square footage of lot area required per dwelling unit shall be strictly interpreted with no credit given for fractional portions of the required minimum as a basis for constructing additional dwelling units, except in the beR-6ted onential su h allotict where a containing two-family dwelling may square feet. a minimum of eight thousand (8,000) (c) In any c lot nononforming as torminimumlodge allot areal be constructed for the on a district. (d) If two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single owner- ship (including husband and wife as in all cases a single owner) are of record at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this zoning code, regardless of diverse times of acquisition, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and area, t he lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this code, and no portion of said parcel shall t the be used requirements established led which byothisocodee(Ord. No.hand 11- 975e§ require 1; Ord. No. 16-1980, § 3) Sec. 24-13.7. Lot reduction; prohibition against es- tablishing new nonconforming uses. No lot or parcel of land, nor any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to create a new nonconforming use, to avoid, circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter, or so as to leave remaining any lot or width or area below the requirements for a legal building site as described in this code; nor shall any lot or portion of a lot required for a legal building site under the provisions of this code be used as a portion of a lot required as a site for another structure. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel of land which has been transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired in violation of this paragraph. Any transferee who acquires a lot or parcel of land in violation of this paragraph without knowledge of such violation, and any subsequent transferee, shall have the right to rescind and/or receive damages from any transferor who violates the provisions of this paragraph. (Ord. No. 11-1975, § 1; Ord. No. 16-1980, § 3) C 2 sic) Prohibited conveyances. No lot or parcel of land, nor any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to create a new nonconforming use or to avoid or circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter. 1PIc) No subdivision of land shall be approved which \ includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of Cc 1 any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the City of Aspen or law or regulation of the State of Colorado. It is the intent of this section to allow the condominiumiza- tion of lodges which may be either nonconforming structures or uses. (Ord. No. 22-1975, § 1; Ord. No. 14-1980, § :�'E c - 'Zq - 13A Sec. 24-13.10. Lodge/residential preservation. All single-family, duplex, multifamily, lodge and hotel uses that were lawfully established and continually so used thereafter but located within a zoning district where such use is currently not either a permitted or conditional use are by definition nonconforming uses, but, pursuant to the provisions of this section, are to be considered allowed uses and are not subject to the provisions of section 24-13.2, 24-13.4 and 24-13.5; provided: (1) All new construction, reconstruction or modification of a structure shall meet the area and bulk requirements of the underlying district. If renovation of a structure is to be performed it shall not increase the nonconform- ity of the. structure. For the purpose of this section, the investment of less than fifty (50) per cent of the value of the structure is considered renovation and -the investment of fifty (50) per cent or more of the value of the structure is considered reconstruction. (2) No increase in the number of units or square footage shall be allowed. (3) Any change in use shall not be to a use of a lower or less restrictive classification, but rather to a use of the same or higher classification. (4) If any such use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by the code for the district in which such land is located. The act of obtaining a building permit within the one-year period shall be considered to have tolled the one-year time period and the lodge and residential use may be reestablished at the completion of construction, however, failure to reestablish such use within thirty (30) days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall deprive the property owner of the continued use of his property as a residential or lodge use. (Ord. No. 15-1980, § 1) • CITY OF OPEN MEMO FROM COLETTE PENNE LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 611 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN March 31, 1981 Mr. Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Behrendt Subdivision Exemption Dear Sunny, TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Please consider this letter an application for an exemption for subdivision for the separation of five (5) contiguous 3,000 square foot lots with improvements located in the R-6 zone. My client, Michael Behrendt, purchased Lots K, L & M, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, July 7, 1969, and purchased Lots N & O, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, May 30, 1973. Since §20-4(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code states: "If two (2) or more lots or portions of lots within the original Aspen townsite or additions thereto have continuous frontage and are in single ownership on the effective date of this section, the lots or portions thereof involved, regardless of diverse times of acquisition, shall be considered an undivided parcel for the purposes of this chapter and conveyance of any whether or not along lot lines, shall constitute a subdivision." My client is required to go through the subdivision process to redivide these lots into two (2) separate parcels. The minimum lot area in the R-6 zone is 6,000 square feet. We will, therefore, be recreating conforming parcels of 9,000 square feet and 6,000 square feet. Since we will be creating conforming lots which meet the area and bulk requirements of the Code for the R-6 zone, I believe an Mr. Sunny Vann March 31, 1981 Page Two exemption is appropriate. Section 20-19 of the Subdivision section states that the Planning Commission may grant exemptions from the strict compliance with the subdivision regulations. The criteria for granting exemptions exist when an exemption is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and the granting of the exemption will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situate. I believe all of these, therefore, are applicable in this case and justify an exemption from subdivision. There is no justification, I believe, for combining these lots. The merger doctrine was intended to preclude single townsite lots of 3,000 square feet from being separately conveyed once two (2) come into joint ownership. The requirement of resubdivision of townsite lots also presents the opportunity to preclude questionable development on steep or undeveloped sites. However, when lots meet the minimum area requirements in one (1) ownership and are fully developed there is no necessity to keep them combined or merged together. My client purchased these lots at separate times from separate individuals, has always considered them as separate property, has separate loans on them and at this particular time is in default on one (1) of his loans because of the merger of the lots and the need to resubdivide them. For your information, we do not anticipate any immediate sale or changes in the property, but would appreciate an expedicious resolution of the separation so that his loan will not be called. If you have any additional questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Gideon Ka man GK kw C� • Nar��r•���`rail�� TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office '� FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department.__ -A/ DATE: May 8, 1981 RE: Behrendt Subdivision Exception, Lots K, L, M, N, and O, Block 46, O.A.T. Having reviewed the above application and after making a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. It should be noted that this re-establishment of the old lot line between lots M and N will increase the non -conformity of the structure on lots N and O by creating a new non- conforming sideyard setback. 2. It is not clear from the application how many dwelling units are in each structure. There is a possibility that this subdivision would also create non -conformities in terms of lot area per unit. 3. Any approval should be contingent on resubmittal of the improvement survey with all applicable certificates and signature blocks. M 1,/e. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Engineering Department FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Behrendt Subdivision Exception - Lot Separation DATE: April 13, 1981 The attached application, submitted by Michael Behrendt, is a request for subdivision exception for a lot separation. The lots concerned are K, L, M, N, and 0, Block 46, in Aspen, This item is scheduled to appear before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19, 1981. Please review and return any comments by Monday, May 4. Thank you. CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 1981 TO: Colette Penne FROM: Paul Taddune RE: Behrendt Subdivision Exception - Lot Separation I make the following observations concerning the code: 1. Section 20-3(s) defines subdivision as a "division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of owner- ship, or for building or other development or for street use". The Behrendt application makes no indication of the "purpose" for which the subdivision is sought and I, therefore, ques- tion the appropriateness of the application at this time. 2. Section 20-4(c) indicates that parcels of single ownership are merged if they are singly owned "on the effective date of this section". Strictly construed, it would appear that the ordinance merging the properties does not have application if the respective properties were acquired after the effective date, 1975. 3. Section 20-4(d) appears to allow the owner to apply for an exemption from the definition of subdivision pursuant to Sec- tion 20-19(b). Under Section 20-19(b), following a recom- mendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council may exempt a particular division of land from the definition of subdivision when, in the judgment of the City Council, such division is not within the intent and purpose of the subdi- vision chapter. 4. Under Section 20-3(s)(5) the tern subdivision shall not apply to a division of land or interest in land "by a lien, inort- gage, deed of trust or any other security interest". It thus appears that financing arrangements calling for the encum- brance of land are outside the subdivision definition and should not be affected by the subdivision definition. n n Memo to Colette Penne May 14, 1981 Page Two Generally, I see no reason why the Behrendt parcels, if in fact it appears that the merger doctrine is applicable, should not be exempted from the definition of subdivision. On the other hand, I am curious as to the need for an exemption under the circums- tances.