The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ex.LotK&22-1/2'Lot1,Blk22.1976 " / /}.<;-/;7:;~;;::'. . ~/'~ v" ~e 7 ~~r-~ k r1~ /-/'# ~ / k:7~ , // STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, JAMES LEE PARDEE, III, is the owner of a parcel of land located in pitkin county, colorado, more particularly described as: All of Lot K and the Westerly 22 1/2 feet of Lot L, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen, pitkin county, and WHEREAS, there exists on said property a duplex structure in which the applicant wishes to separate interest without parcel- ing the land on which said structure is situate, and WHEREAS, there has been made an application for exemption from the definition of subdivision for such conveyance of interests pur- suant to Section 20-19 of Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the Aspen planning and. zoning Commission, at its meeting held January 27, 1976, has determined that such exemption is appropriate provided that: a, there shall be no additional bath or bedrooms constructed in either dwelling unit, b. in the event the existing structure is destroyed, or replaced, the site shall not be cQnsidered available for construction of two individual residences, but there shall be permitted only the replacement of a duplex or construction of one single family structure, c. the applicant agrees to join any future improve- ment districts formed for the purposes of constructing street improvements (including sidewalk, curb, gutter or paving) or undergrounding of overhead utility lines, which include the subject property within the proposed district, d. the applicant agrees to reimburse the City for his proportionate share of the cost of the above improvements should the City elect to construct them without the formation of a special assessment district, and e. that there be imposed a subdivision dedication fee calculated pursuant to section 20-18, the exception of subsection 20-18(a) (5) to the contrary notwithstand- ing, and WHEREI\S, the City Council has found the proposed division of interest in the existing structure to be without the intents and purposes of-'subdiVis"ibrl regulation provided that the .constraints. imposed in subsections a, b, c and d above, proposed by the Planning and Zoning Con@ission, be maintained, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Aspen does hereby determine that the proposed division of interest in the duplex structure situate on the above-described land is without the intents and purposes of subdivision regulation, and does, for such reason, grant an exemption from the definition of subdivision for such action, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that this grant of exemption shall at all times be conditioned on compliance by the applicant, his heirs, assigns and successors in interest, with the conditions with respect to extension, replacement and contribution to the cost of public improvements, itemized in subparagraphs a through d above; which conditions shall be deemed a covenant running with the land and burden the same, PROVIDED, FURTHER, that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning commission notwithstanding, there shall be imposed no subdivision dedication fee for such proposed conveyance of separate interests, the same being exempted from any such requirement by Date :./;Q~"?> /'77G, STACY TANDLEY, III, - OR tLC^-', I, KATHRYN S. HAUTER, do certify t at the ~re~oln Statement virtue of Section 20-l8(a) (5) of the Aspen of Exemption from the defintiion of Subdivision was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held Monday, February 9, 1976, at which time the Mayor, STACY STANDLEY, III, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen . kz~~)_~_d2.~..""~-- I<ATHRYt-j/S-:--HAUTER, CITY CLERK STI\TE OF COLORl\DO ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ./,1 The foregoing was acknowledged before me this ~ day of J u<'"t!..:<a;?T----' 1976, by STACY S1'ANDLEY, III and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, . '....,.... personally known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk respectively of the City of Aspen. Witness my hand and official seal. LV..-:}, ".../f .....-i -:1<1.1.'4 <.Z!.J.7.l!:&.2Z~k' I Notary PUlp'-lC My Commis~;jon ;' . f / /" ,-,xpi r os : _..J+-~../-'-:_fLL__-' / "'""' .....- MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING DEPT. DAVE ELLIS 'C\'\r CITY ENGINEER ~Z---- FROM: DATE: November 21, 1975 RE: Pardee Subdivision Exemption - (Lot K & W'rly 22~' of Lot L Block 22) The Engineering Department recommends subdivision exemption for this project with the following conditions: 1) The applicant agrees to join any future improvement distric~formed for the purposes of constructing street improvements (including sidewalk, curb, gutter or paving) or under- grounding of overhead utility lines. 2) The applicant agrees to reimburse the city for his proportionate share of the cost of the above improvements should the city elect to construct them without the formation of a special assessment district. \.// , '1/ ~ .LL~h.--/,--, November 17, 1975 Andrew Hecht, Lsq. .:;arfield .. Hecht Attorneys-at-Law P. O. BOX 8237 Aspen, Colorado B16ll Re: subdivision on Lots K and East 22-50 Feet of Lot L, Block 22 Dear Andy: r am going to intercept your correspondence and answer just to save communication ttme. Although not stated in the letter, I assume that the exemption request is being submitted to permit your clients to condominiumize an exist- ing duplex (i.e. separate interest in the units but an un- uivided one-half interest in the land) a8 oppo8ed to convey- ing out the existing lots as two independent parcels. ,ie have no requirement in the zoning code such as to insist that eaoh dwelling unit rest separately on a designated lot. The subdivision code requires that lots front on a public street, and that new lots be of a size to conform to existing zoning regulationS:- consequently, only if you are parceling the tract into two lots does this direct prohibition come into play. 8ection 24-12.7 seems to be the controlling provision. It reads (in part) 1 ",iO lot or parcel of land, ,",or any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided, or acquired either in whole or in part, gO as to create a new nonconforming use, to avoid, circumvent or SUbvert any provision of this chapter, or ~ !!!. to leave remaini.!l'l Andrew Hecht, Esq. November 17,:975 -Page 2- ~ny lot or width or area below the retlirements ..E!. ~ legal buildil!\!. site"-as de'ii'Cribe in this code; nor shall any lot or portion of a lot required for a legal building site under the pro- visions of this code be used as a portion of a lot required as a site for another structure. ..... Again, there is a direct prohibition against parceling out a lot constituting less than the rQquired area for a legal building Bite. ,~Bsuming no parceling, \-Ie are left with whether the duplex now is an existing nonconforming use. (If it was built ~efore May 15, 1975, It probably is.) If so, <'cnd the owner owns contiguous land, ,..e would have to insist that this land be allocated to support the duplex density before an exemption would be considered (See section 24-12.',) or, in the alternative, that he seek a variance. If he does not own contiguous land, then your clients can enjoy the nonconforming status of his use, but I would recommend that any exemption be conditioned upon the recognition of the nonconformity and not be deemed permission to develop the site as two independent development sites in the future. very truly yours, Sandra M. Stuller City Attorney SS/pk ..,......' , "F_ -:r ._ > ;'::~'_. " l: ~; / ... .... / / / \. :. 'Ar .l ~, .-c..L,,~,----, ".~ ~ J. ~.,-, .' November 17, 1975 Andrew Hecht, Lsq. Garfield .. Hecht Attorneys-~t-Law P. o. ::;OX 8237 Aspen, Colorado 21611 ", Re: Subdivision on Lots K and East 22-50 Feet of Lot L, Block 22 Dear Andy: r am going to intercept your correspondence and answer just to save communication time. Although not stated in the letter, I assume that the exemption request is being submitted to permit your clients to condorniniumize an exist- ing duplex (i.e. separate interest in the units but an un- divided one-half interest in the land) as opposed to convey- i~g out the existing lots as two independent parcels. Ve have no requirement in the zoning code such as to insist that each dwelling unit rest separately on a designated lot. The subdivision code requires that lots front on a public street, and that new lots be of a size to conform to existing zoning regulationS:- Consequently, cnly if you are parceling the tract into two lots does this direct prohibition come into play. ::ectioll 24-:2.7 sealS to be the controlling provision. It reads (in part): "J 10 lot or parcel of land, ;.or any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided, or acquired either in whole or in part, '30 as to create a nm.,r nonconforming use, to avoid, ,;ircurlvent or 'subvert any provision of this chapter, or ~ ~ to leave remaini~ .. / l . / r'\ r .I' / \' , t .. , \ . .. ~ f- !l .,0, ._...-'-c,....-;=-: '_ "'='.""""'-"'C~,=" ~"-"-:~""=~==CC=='~'~"""~'''~---~=~==e-C-=''C+~~.~~~:~~:;,.-".,~ AaU~O:r~v ^H:> ~attn~s 'W ~xpuvS 's~nOA Atn~~ ~ea .a~n~nJ a~~ uT sa~T8 ~uamdOTa^ap ~uapuadapU1 O~~ su a~T8 a~~ dotaAap o~ UOTsST~ad pamaap aq ~OU pue ^~T~OJuoouou e~~ JO UOT~Tu60oa~ e~~ uodn pouOl~lpuOO eq uOT~dmaxe AUU ~U~~ pUetIDllOOa~ PTnoM I ~nq 'Dsn slU. 10 sn~v~s DUl~OJuoouou e~~ Ao~ua uvo s~uel1o ~noA uaq~ 'PU~T snonbf~uoo ~~o ~ou saop e~;n .aouvl~\?A U :il",es aq ~utp 'eAl~UlUa~1)? aq~ uT '.:co ("'ZT-vZ . uOl~.oes a~s) pa;IGPlsuo::> aq Ptnol.\ U01~c.~a::~ Ut? e.::ro;0q L:tlSU3? xatdnp eq~ ~~oddns o~ pa~uooTTu aq puuT sTq~ ~vq~ ~slsuT o~ aAuq PtnOM. e:\ 'PUVT snonf)T~uoo SWo\O ~aW\o a~~ pu'", 'os 1I .~. (.sl i~1:Ci1?qo.:Id :;'1 ISLCT 'ST ..~l?I( a.:toJa::: ~TTnq sv~ ~T ;I) 'esn DUT~oJuoouou bUl~slxa UU 8T MOU xaldnp aq~ ~aq~a~~ ~~TM ~;aT e~e en 'buTleo~ud ou oUTwnss~ .e~Ts oUTPTTnq Tunat v ~oJ va~u pa~Tnbb~ eq~ uuq~ sset oUT~n~T~suoc ~Ot e ~no DUTTeo~vd ~suTeoe uOT~TqTqo~d ~oa~TP e 9T a.:req~ 'uTunV u.'. 'a~n~c~~s .:raq~oue ~01 a~Ts v se pa~Tnbe~ ~Ot e ;0 UOT~~od e se pasn eq epee sT~~ 10 SUOIST^ -o~d aq~ ~apun e~Ts fiuTPTTnq Teoet v ~oJ pa~Tnba~ ~Ot e JO UOT~~od ~o ~oT Aue ttuqs .:rou lapoo sTq~ uT peqT~osep su e~LS fiuTPt~nq tebel e ~O; s~ui)ma~plbe~ i)tp bmle<1 W:rn ~o tFlPV' .:ro ~ol ue -r; c'[)"2~- S L(. J L T ':h)c.r;-_~'1i.C1~ .bs~ '~qoell HO.:rpU'i .' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Subdivision Exemption - Pardee DATE: January 15, 1976 The Planning Office recommends approval of the subdivision exemption request subject to the attached requirements of the City Engineer. The Aspen City Council is considering the adoption of the revised Open Space Dedication Ordinance (which P & Z approved on December 9, 1975) which requires duplexes to pay open space dedication fees. Council has recently exempted the Manuel Condominiumization from open space dedication requirements because they had not as yet adopted the duplex change. GARFIELD & HECHT AITORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 8237 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT JOHN L. LAWRENCE TELEPHONE (303) 925.1936 November 10, 1975 Mr. Hal Clark Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Hal: Pursuant to our conversation November 4, I am asking for clarifi- cation of the procedure required for exemption from the subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen. The application in question is one submitted by James Lee Pardee with respect to the real pro- perty described as Lot K and the Easterly 22.50 feet of Lot L, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. That property has on it a duplex. However, since the duplex is noton two full lots, my question is whether it is necessary to go first to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance for such non-conforming lots or is it sufficient to go only to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the application for exemption from subdivision? Sincerely, ~/M~ Andrew V. Hecht cc: Sandra Stuller David Ellis AVH/kjk "- ',.~" ....., - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION Pursuant to Section 20-19 of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, JAMES LEE PARDEE III hereby applies for an exemption from the definition of the term "subdivision" with respect to the real property described as: All Lot K and the Westerly 22 1/2 feet of Lot L, Block 22 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado The applicant submits that the exemption in this case would be appropriate. The application involves subdivision of an existing duplex into two condominiums and does not in any way increase the land use impact of that property. The applicant submits that such an exemption in the instant case would not conflict with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations which are directed to assist, among other things, orderly, efficient, and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of population; to coordinate the need for public services; and to encourage well planned subdivision. They are directed to considerations of subdivision design and improvements and to restrict such building where it is inappropriate after considering its land use impact. In the present application those decisions cannot be made as the building exists, and the density would not effect the prevailing contemplated or desired population density on this property. We would greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter at your next regular meeting. Sincerely, c:.;;2~/ P ANDREW V. HECHT for the Applicant