HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.001-86RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLAHNII~ AND ZONIN~ COHHISSION
RECOIOIHNDII~ THieF CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE BLIGIBIL1TY
RI~UIREMENTS FOR THE GHP EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLITS
Resolution No. 86- ;
W~EREAS, at a meeting on September 23, 1985 and in response to a
request by a member of the public, the Aspen City Council did initiate
an amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen to eliminate the
requirement that there must be a pre-existing dwelling unit on a
parcel of land in order to be eligible for a lot split GMP exemption;
and
W~EREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
"Commission") did hold a public hearing on January 7, 1986 to consider
the amendment initiated by Council and the recommended modification
initiated by the Planning Office; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did accept the recommendation of the
Planning Office with respect to the proposed amendment of eliminating
the existing dwelling unit requirement for lot splits of original
townsite and early addition lots, while also eliminating the ability for
parcels in newer subdivisions and annexed areas to be eligible for
the lot split GMP exemption altogether, as a result of having made the
following
1.
findings:
The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and
subsequent additions has minimal growth and development
impacts. Permitting a GMP exemption for this activity
provides a pressure relief value from the merger provisions
of the Code. However, requiring a pre-existing unit on the
lot to have it split may cause speculative development
simply to gain the eligibility to create the second lot and
is therefore undesireable.
In-filling of existing residential neighborhoods that may
result from this code amendment is generally desireable from
the standpoints of available service, efficient land utiliza-
tion, and property taxation.
The number of potential lot splits in newer subdivisions and
areas that might be annexed is greater than the potential in
the older part of the City and could entail significant growth
and development impacts.
Neighbors should be able to rely on the assumption that
large subdivision lots zoned for more than one unit will not
be resubdividedwithout undergoing the fullGMPand subdivision
process to better address development impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ~ RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby recommend the following action to Aspen City Council:
Resolution No. 86- ]
Page 2
That Section 24-11.2(d) be repealed and re-enacted to read as
follows:
(d)
(new language is in bold, old language is crossed out)
The construction of one single-family residence on a lot
fo~med by a lot split granted subsequent to ' '
November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met:
(1) The tra~t of land is n~t located in a subdivision which
received appr~al by either the Board of County
sioners or City Council, excepting any land subject to
a subdivision exemption by the City Council since
January 1, 1984; or the tract of land is described as a
metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided
since the adoption of subdivision regulations by the
City of Aspen on Narch 24, 1969;
(2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision;
(3)
(4)
(5)
The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was
not previously the subject of an exemption under the
provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception
or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19.
A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the
applicant after City approval indicating that no
further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
additional units be built without receipt of applicable
approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation
pursuant to Section 24-11.1.
The application was reviewed by the City Council at a
public hearing held pursuant to the standards of
Sections 24-12.5(c)(1) and (2).
ASPEN PLABBII~ AND $ONING
cO~qlSSION
C. Welton And~rson,
Cha i rman
Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk
SB.01