HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Block 46- lots k - o- Behrendt sub.29-81
-f-Thi,s o,pplic.Q+iD""-- IS Q SvJ:d. 'i:xCe.f+;b7l~2Jt .
)( Subdivision Stream Margin ~
XExcePtion 8040 Greenline eXe.rY'f1-i&J.1J
. Exemption _View Plane O-S S~.
70:30 _Conditional Use
Residential Bonus _Other
.',""
~,..""""
No. ;)..Cf-8'J
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: 4NJ 81 STAFF: C1).kttlfVY\N\Q~
2. APPLICANT: /l1;/'},tUllJfhrenrlf-
3. REPRESENTATIVE: C,cle~ k~l'J?tt~.....J
4. PROJECTNAME:_l':e1rel1dt ,~'lJ tJ .1~t(,p H~ -L~f :J,efbraficlP1J
5. LOCATION:' LtJfs K. t.d 111; .Bloek ~/.t; " /Jupe,yu
[0 fs !IJ yO) Bl6e}:. 4& J AJfPM)
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Sped a 1 Revi ew
Growtl: Management
HPC
~hJf{t~MJ
Q _ xl 1ll"1 /9, LUl
7. REFERRALS:
X Attorney
~ Engineering Dept.
_HoUSing
Water
_City Electric
Sanitation District ____School District
Fire Marshal _Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks _State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric _Other
Mountairi Bell
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
r"'\
.1""\
1""'\
,-",,'
~~ 50'~
. :f cjJL-;?-c(?ll
;.JhI2\
r'\
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
DATE:
Behrendt Subdivision Exception (Lot Split)
(\
/ H
June 15, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORI~:-W"",-
/;
/
/ Zoning:
Location:
R-6
(
o
Applicant's
Request:
Lots K, L, M, Nand 0, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen
Subdivision exception for purposes of a lot split forming two
parcels - 1 - Lots K, L, M; 2 - Lots Nand 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 Nand 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. Secti.on 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.
l
,
Memo: Behrendt
Page Two
June 15, 1981
Planning Office
Review:
/
~.__m__-
Planning Office
,} Recommendations:
{"'\,
''l
Subdivision Exception (Lot Split)
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. ~n the
other hand, I am curious as to the need for an exempt10n under
the circumstances.
Section 20-5(c) of the Aspen Code states that "no lot or parcel
of land, nor any interest therein, shall be tr~nsferred,
conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either 1n 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 canno~ 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-.J;wo l.2.t.sto rema;rutan_d.QrcLsif.~_sQ.L6QOO s-'1.lJare..l~_t~
and 9UlKlsquare feet. The lot split is requested for
re-financing purposes, because of separate finance arrange-
ments on the two parcels.
The Planning Office recommends 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 l'lnfol of 1.4 feet S9 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.
~----_._-_.__.-,.-
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.
P & Z Action:
s~ 'i1'." ~<:;;, f,o, .,.e.C"
Council Acti on:
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.
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.
("", n
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."
'J' . ..~ . """'_"__ 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 lin~ 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 thet 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.
- ,-" --.---,-- _.-------------~---..----"'~-=;,.,;...,----.
++-~".".,.cc-.,...---
"
4
.
'.
n
550'PA~Ej14
Recordedat~Lo'clock..t.M !1-~-~7
ReceptiOn No ....; . 2- q if b ill
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER
60011
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 Nand 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 Bui14ing
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:S day of October, 1987.
H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT
By rJ I ~
Gideon Kaufman, hi
(SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)
- 1 -
.'
..
r'l
n 8001(550 PAGE315
.
CITY OF A9PE'N,
~.
L. S
By
W
corporation
or
FORM:
,..........,
\f\0'1.>V...-.!>->
I, KATHRYN S. KOCH, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision PJ:'ge'9,IM'i" for
the Purpose of Condominiumizing the Property at ,,3,(l&'~b'I1~t,
Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, was considered and !-'p~f!&otlY . '.
th7 A.spen City Coun?il and that the Mayor, Wi~'ii?~(;;#,~,:;),:,'':., "'.
S~~rl~ng, was author~zed to execute the same on l!eh!ll~,,',~~th~',;
c~ty of Aspen. ~ : 1,~S i
~ ~ \<~~~1tf~~}':,\~t:i /
Cle';~"S~" j:~' ..):~:"./
'~'" t""
11'''",....
STATE OF COLORADO)
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
ss.
~;he fore~~ng instrument was acknowledged before,~e this
...Q...:.:.......day of 'Zf..#-<" 4. n< I fV, 1987, by William Sti,:(r,lng as
Mayor, and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the,{ltf\,Jl.JJotill.,1.
ASPEN, State of Colorado, a municipal corporatio~/~jh:peh~I~
of said corporation.~, ,i,';i :\..:'
WITNESS my hand and official seal.~,'):;\f;:':'i(l
My commission expires :l' Commi~~!o'l e':pkea S:'11!M. ~~J:}t"i;';:f~;0~~~,.,'
'TATE OF COLORADO ) \f'a"%t:J!/:/hlJft"':rr~;'0 /
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregBing instrument was acknowledged before me this
~~ day ofL/a7Vg~e, 1987, by GIDEON KAUFMAN as
attorney-in-fact for H. MICHAEL BEHRENDT, on behalf of said
.' principal.
~,;,,,:;;,;,,,;;,,Z-_.""~"~, ~
Aff-~::\5:)':~.L{;);;.,,,,, WITNESS. my :hand aI?-d official seal.
,,4t-?.Cj~<\ \.)TA t) r...~c '\~y comm~ss~on~xpHes: ~
t;;t'}~"~ .J ~Ji Commlssi.Q.pExp},es Eebr;W)l18. ~88 t~'L
"r~0]f:;f~:!)~~\~~S)}~.jl<~-~'~'~~ ~ ",,~::
".~;e'",,'.. e-'o.t.c'o'\'O ",
.. -,.^,.:.,,~.., ~... ,\
."\ ;:}<~.:tli,,! . " ,A" , . ,. \' \
", 'excstmt/COND03
'!~~~':i('c~'l j.
- 2 -
fYIEMOKAM&urv1
~ :: ; ,/~.j)lR~,:': lr7'yt~K>>ml~$;~
m. {vj~t fk".~.,... JOJ'J1'1 Ie.. ow.~
I
!
---o-n;nl'R---b-'< ,
it i ..../ ..'.,..i.,,!., ' / " ()-fAs.~
a~1i:~:ri~*':t"""H . .
I f K'Lc~/i.;JlVI,)J?"'''+Pt ~ old /0-1 l~
Ii ~. /oD;/Y) Q/ldN WI II fVlQe.a.~
I ~",,', Yl, pn'!2&n1-JrYrr'ftt 4' ~s+ ~~,"
IOtJjo~)/WJdO. ~~. ~..
I .no:=:i~~:Jj$; ...~. dc,
I ,2, -r-t'~notd~~mm.~o.pp!i~~, h~
I; ~~:l:~~I~~kt7@
'I "+-tu~ ~cl;\j.r~{(j--nQ.)(;I&LJl)J:i;Q · · '. '
.1' ~i)~~.~~!f:ti~ i9~~0j2h:t:~
,'Ip-o.r- (A,kH+
t.l.
K d
;t',i,'~.." 15 "'1 ,J lld'.6- ~', . .-
I,,",!,!,.' cfiJt ~~),t,.'i1,.~.~..3i~i~~~~~~1
!I ~~1~~~~~~~
r>,
12l~
I make the following observations concerning the code:
. .
1. Section 20-3(s) defines subdivisi'on 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 merg ingthe 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-l9(b). Under Section 20-19(b), following a reCOhl-
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.
n
"
!,
!,
!I
Ii
'I'
. ,
1.
n{ . Il
r QV1~
~~'-;~ :sQdiiC>1;2Q:(~~~) QC +k.o-~ ~
I,I~~ ~iJ-...nq !O+~CfQ~ O-f/Qnd)
Ilnoro~ 'VL~~i~e...'V)/~oJl ~
Il--hO-Y\~~)~,V,.,,'.. ' ) .solei! ~di,,;JJ
II,' 0 t'"", C\"-""';,..J QA-k~~ W~ 0 {~ OLLYl" Qr1J ~O
!/ . . .//v ~,r "
1"Jo., :s -1-0. ~Jh~,"~,OV\,""",;o,',",.'..., Y-vnl~ u.~~
jkb ~~,~ 0,- ~'1 ,..AAXV\(Jy\,L.tj, . (j
il...~ctt,-)3.~~~t;'7:fJAf"*'~
i1i'lPD.;,'?'7t ~~-}3~'t~~ &.--
i,J q.vv"~""",..I,,, ",. """"... ,,',k:},. .,..,',..~,..':,,%,-,.f!P,' }',..,p4,qf M~M,.11tl
I ~.~I;.'f1...~~4-iJ~ iCilJ~
II. .~::;j:~~(.. ..'",.. i',', ..K .,,'...,~~;i,o, 'flu ~i!o:h;)fl
I,,; '~fjo:.J '.bmcth!7"eJo,' Jr~~oc'ik-P,d-riCt,;
I, J ~W hI ~ l,\ -S.JA~J~",-d l~ I 0 co-~ci . ",.
1.., ", "j
".,..+Zg;ff!j;(5f-~~",~~~ !
n, D f(~~,,: ~ :: ;..:.,a-rLtiJ1,':/-t,', ..LlL<"...."..'.'.'.'.,.'M,.,..,'..."".n",.. ...,; ~;. '..", ' ~,"/'" . 'j
r ' d W~A ~~<~~I~.Cr>-(\.f1Q,
I .. ..-.~J~:.X,-~_M~...--
,,",I/)/1 <"fl, fVi.J2,:J/l,.,:;-t-" - flA." ---", J./, QYO.Y1>/flr./ foY-~, .
I,~~ .."..j/l.' .>> .....'. ,~}..,,-:;,(p,
,". .",(LR.,,',.,,'c'c/f:d ~(t?1: .' "
.. .l" . ' . " .10:;"__
II&mm. ~..' IS; ". ztY-fr.)
.. <aO 1'.~
I ."",..;:-1 /V 1Vt'>r
"d-- Clnd
~I~\'\ Y\ ;
~~'
i~I~~~~r~~1r!:~f]tjt:::71~'~
!,kw7~+ ':\~ """g i"""t""''\"~ ~A .. ,.... .j'? .
jrS>: LS ~\~-r ~ \ V\2,..qo,."V\.ct VLCrr'tC0:2_... CVY1LFI--S,
iiWl+\,,"~~d, ::r-4--~"*t'~1 CL
!~~h",,,,t~g-">kL~7;~4 0; '.. ,.R \i
il~dL~4--C~~~~~iJou
r~ ' " .fi\ V\...S of '''' '," ~""" "tif{
;i!-dfV]'1 ./ .,rtl, fttJ-
j/ ,.",51$.g,.~~,,~m,d!::ti~ ${I1Iry)a ~.~ '
j~*~~~:1' ~Pztt~~~~~m;;.
~A~:t~~~:::c~h1d~[1
If ~I~~'! ....::.... K-~k-h'~'S;spc;F~
]1~ -<.-~~~ .--..UuJ:k (p~~~,
L/".,.,.cr
, . '.'.,.j , . ".,.,..."..,."'.....~~-...~"~.,.=.~""'".,,,..c,:..:,;LL"~:'--"c.;".c.....;....... ...""",.."",."
!l '.-
If
il
II
iT
il
[.f
il. .."......."...,......."...........".,.... ."",'.,.' ........'.............""-.'--..""........,..,.
!I
H
II
! ~ I
11
d
,.,.....-;-...,.,'"',.,;,.'..-,..-"..,...,
"'d''''';':'''';''':'_'''--''_ .' _..' ".~"",..:.,.,,,,.,
..,......;<.>,.,...:,c. _<"", ',y.;',;
I
..' f
--
r'\
-,
j
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Behrendt Subdivision Exception (Lot Split)
DATE: May 29, 1981
1
,
I
I
i
,
Zoning:
Location:
{& I'
Refe~'~ Agency
Comments:
~
R-6
Lots K~ L,' M, Nand 0, Bloc~ 46, :~_ty and Towns~te,. OfA~p,',en /'",-j,
~) ~ \ "" 'Cf"." e.;( 0..t.LJh &--Y' .-0 r . h,..v r/.)uoO-Y'. --;f-' a. - I.
~fl+. ,....,.,...."V\* ~o ~\R..S2.V~ - 1.:1 - LoiP':. k' L f1
En lneenn Department } " , 2 - Loh~N~O'
,
loRe-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.
.G.ity Attorney
1
I
!
I
/
I make the following observations concerning the code:
1. Section 20-3(s) defines subdivi.sion 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 definit~ of subdivision pursuant to
Section 20-19(b). Under Section 20-19(b), following a
recommendation fromthe 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, mortg,age, 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~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
.
r"I
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
Review:
Section 20-5(c) of the Aspen Code states that "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."
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."
Planning Office
Recommendations:
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. Add.
The Planning Office recommends 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 lin~ 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,
.
I
\
,
./
, ,~~"
\\ r...'\
~~
,
.
~ "'"
I~
!I
':SEe. 21-
13,10
I, (z.)Cb)(d')
I'
1'1
I
II'
i
"
,ti
~
~
M
I
!
I
f!
II
i
}
i
I'
~
i:
l:
I
I'
'I
II
'I':
I:
!~5Ec 24-",
I'll /3.1-
Ii
L
I,~
i:~
I'
HI
II:
h
if
i ~;
;f:
~~
, ~
1ft
rl',
>-1"
f'l:
,I"
f~
fff
qi
i: ~
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 o'Nnership an? cannot ;neet the minimllm require-
ments for area or Wldth, a smgle-family dwelling and
cllstomary accessory buildings may be erected on any single
lot of record provi ded:
(1) Sllch lot is in separate ownership and not of
continuo.us 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 gen;rally. applicable in the district, provided
that yard dimensions and requirements other than
those applying to area or width, or both, of the lot
sh~1 conform .to the regulations for the district in
___._which the lot IS located, Variances of yard' require-
~ ,
"""""~"""_"''':"''^'~'';'''"''~'':.i._,.'-';''';',.
ments shall be obtained only through action of the
bO.ard of adjustment.
(b) In residential district where two-family or multiple-fam- ~-,..-"""~,-,..-
i1y dwellings are permitted, the requirement for square
footage of lot area required per dwelling unit shall be strictly
interpreted with no credit gi ven for fractional portions of the
required minimum as a basis for constructing additional
dwelling units, except in the R-6 residential district where a
two-family dwelling may be erected on such a lot containing
a minimum of eight thousand (8,000) square feet,
(c) In any district, no, hotel or lodge shall be constructed
on a lot nonconforming as to minimum lot area for the
district. '
(d) If two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots and
portions of lots with continuous frontag~ in single owner-
ship (including husband and wife as in all cases a single
owner) are of record at the effective date of I'doption or
amendment of this zoni ng code, regardless of di verse times
of acquisition, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the
requirements established for lot width and area, the lands
involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for
the purposes Of this code, and no portion of said parcel shall
be used or occupied which does not meet the width and area
requirements established by this code. (Ord.No. 11:1975, ~
1; Ord. No. 16.1980, ~ 3)
Sec. i4=-13.7~L;;t ~;d~~tio~; -p;~hibiti~;;'-~gainst es-
tablishing new noneonformin~ 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 whic,h has been transferred, conveyed, sold,
subdivided or acquired in violation of this
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)
.;.,: ;-.,,:,., ~.:.;/;,
"-',:',.ii",:". ,::,~<_+):':;:,C):~::i
TI
Ii
C. 2d\- ~
* ,+ IT
!J(V)
It ," ,'..
II
]1
'1
L
,1+
II
SEe, ~i-
13./Ql
il
L
1'1
,
.\J,
iJ
I'
I
I
1
,
I'
I
h
jl
I'
II
\1
11
I
II
I'
,I
il
H
".j
d
Ii
\il,
r\
1P''='<c) 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 circwnvent
or subvert any provision of this chapter.
~~-,-,-- '
,._."..~-~'~'
tC/1'c) No subdivision' of land shall ~e approve~ ,which
includes elements not in conformance WIth the prOVISIons of
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, ~
,_,:~~;:;;::,;;;:;:;;:,~~:'7.:.-~-:;-,> ,~,.~."-::;",_"~:;::::.::;;::;;;;:::::-~"::;.~:::;;?::;:~';;:;,~,"~;'-;~ .", :;C-;;G"""P,'C""
.;
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 c.onstruction, reconstruction or modification of
a structure shall meet the~ea 81'ld 'llUlk requirements
of the underlying district. If renovation. of 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 re~onstruction.
(2) No increase in the number of units or square footage ..............,....~._.........'.
shall be allowed.
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) .
(3)
..._",.."~-->.~._~,..,"-"-,...~.".,, ..
CITY OF ASPEN ~
MEMO FROM COLETTE PENNE -
~.,~iA.lV'\
i', ,', - ' " ' ~~V
!'-'f~ J, '
~~UJY\ . \VlM~
?in ,VAil :;j.): , .' Ok,'~'"
C ~\.}J.-- />JlJ.~/ .', 1['"
. ~J' ' ".
. ('I\~n J ( I:J-=' ,
. U v::. ~, .D\-'V .' ,..:""
. l:jY;)" \ ~ '?-S",p/"'
~v'V" ' ov.'::!-l
~
n I '+-' I
'\k y~ .~/VL':1 frl)J-"/~;>JZ- (~ '
.' (j ;1i ck >
_ ,/ ".,,!t.. i," .
~~r i~ (f'= "q
f""'"
Ii
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
March 31, 1981
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Behrendt Subdivision Exemption
Dear Sunny,
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 pvrchased Lots N & 0, 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
f!""'\
, ,
n
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
please feel free to contact me.
on this matter,
Very truly yours,
Gi:!K~
GK kw
r'\
n
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, Engineering Department *
TO:
DATE:
May 8, 1981
RE:
Behrendt Subdivision Exception, Lots K, L, M, N, and 0,
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 increa.se the non-conformity
of the structure on lots Nand 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
sign~ture blocks.
f""\
-.
I .,
. ')
1-,k
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. Tfle 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.
iI""'\
iI""'\
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 14, 1981
TO: Colette Penne
FROM: Paul Taddune
RE: Behrendt Subdivision Exception - LO,t Separation
,
i
I make the following observations conceJning the code:
!
1. Section 20-3(s) defines subdivisio~ as a "division for the
purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of owner-
ship, or for building or other dev~lopment or for street
usell. I
i
The Behrendt application makes no ~ndication of the "purpose"
for which the subdivision is sought: and I, therefore, ques-
tion the appropriateness of the ap~lication at this time.
i
2. Section 20-4(c) indicates that parclels 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 dqes not have application if
the respective properties were acq~ired after the effective
date, 1975.
3. Section 20-4(d) appears to allow t~e owner to apply for an
exemption from the definition of subdivision pursuant to Sec-
tion 20-19 (b) . Under Section 20-1$ (b), following a reCOl,l-
mendation from the Planning COJ1\ffiis$ion, the City Council may
exempt a particular division of la*d 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. !
,
i
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 trus t or any other s~curity interes t". It thus
appears that financing arrangements call ing for the encum-
brance of land are outside the subdivision definition and
should not be affected by the subd~vision definition.
i
,
,
i
1"""\,
('.
h' j
~
Memo to Colette Penne
May 14, 1981
Page Two
:
,
Generally, I see no reason why the Behrend~ parcels, if in fact it
appears that the merger doctrine is appl ic~ble, should not be
exempted from the definition of subdivisioh. On the other hand, I
am curious as to the need for an exemption! under the circums-
tances.