HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.LotK&22-1/2'Lot1,Blk22.1976I CV1 6Ex oa
PARDEE —
Lot K and 2212 feet Lot 1, B.2
C
0
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 cgnsidered 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 undergroundi.ng 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 ttie contrary notwithstand-
ing, and
WiiERE11S, the City Council has found the proposed division of
interest in the existing structure to be without the intents and
pu.rposes'of subdivision regulation provided that the constraints
imposed in subsections a, b, c and d above, proposed by the Planning
and Zoning Commission, 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
virtue of Section 20-18(a)(5) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Date:
/^&+=u
_
/J STACY7-'ANDLEY�_
I, KATHRYN S . HAUTER, do certify t�4t the r."ec�oinb) Statement
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 .
ZATHRYN . HAUTER, CITY CLERK
STATE OP COI,ORADO )
) ss. .
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this r /day of
1976, by STACY STANDLEY, 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.
Notary Puk�,Y"ic
My Commission expires:
0
LA
MEMO
TO: HAL CLARK
PLANNING DEPT.
FROM: DAVE ELLIS
CITY ENGINEER
DATE: November 21, 1975
RE: Pardee Subdivision Exemption - (Lot K & Wirly 222' 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 districtsformed 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.
November 17, 975
Andrew Hecht, ..sq.
,arfield & iiecht
Attorneys-.- t-Law
P. . -ox ^0237
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Subdivision on Lots iC and Last 22-50
Feet of Lot L, lock 22
Dear Andy:
an going to intercept your correspondence and
answer just to save communication time. .-..lthough not stated
in the letter; I assume that, the exemption request is being
submitted to permit your clients to condominiumize an exist-
ng duplex (i.-. :!eparate interest in the units but an un-
ivided one-half interest in the land) as opposed to convey-
ing out the existing lots as two independent parcels.
.'e 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, end that new lots be of a size to conform to existing
zoning regulations. Consequently, my if you are parceling
the tract into two lots does this direct prohibition come into
play.
section 2.4-'2.7 seems to be the controlling provision.
It reads (in part):
o lot or parcel of land, ..or any interest
therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, :old,
subdivided, c;r acquired oit,her in whole or in
part, _o as to create a new nonconforming use,
co avoid, .:ircumvent or su!;vert any provision
of this chapter, or so as to leave remaining
Andrew Hecht, Esq.
"lovember 17, '975
--Page 2-
any lot or width or area below the regnirements
for a legal building~site As described in this
-ode; nor shall any lot or portion of a lot
required for a legal building site under the pro-
visions of this cote 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 required area for a legal
building site. -,ssuming no parceling, ,e are left with whether
the duplex now is an existing nonconforming use. (If it was built
efore May 13, .975, it probably is.)
If so, •-nd 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, -hat he seek a variance. :_f 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 i)ermission to develop the site as two independent
development sites in the future.
ery truly vours,
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
SS/pk
november 17, 1975
Andrew Hecht, Lsq.
Garfield & Ilecht
Attorneys-.:t-Law
P. -ox 2237
A -per., C_-7 'o 1 1J
Re: Subdivision on Lots R and East 22-50
Feet of Lot L, 1;1ock 22
Dear Andy:
i am going to intercept your correspondence and
answer just to save cormunication tLae. :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 separate interest in the units but an un-
"Avided one-half interest in the land) as opposed to convey-
1.� Oil4 . ` t_na!:g lots 2two indi pi ndent parcels.
. the _. cx-3.�
V!e 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, :_nly if you are parceling
the tract into two lots does this direct prohibition come into
play.
_.. / S :;; L':: _" a { _:e Con rol"LinC provis .o:- .
It reads (in nart):
" ;o lot or parcel of lard, ..or any interest
therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold,
subdivided, car acquired dither in whole or in
par_, :!o as to create a n-:!w ncnconforminq use,
- avoic , :ircu.^.vent or suh.vert an%r provision
of this chapter, or so as to leave remaining
Andrew Hecht, �.
P, ovc_nbc-r 17, -
-Page 2-
lot or wi(lth or area below th,3 rernliremcnts
for a logal busldin site as f1escried 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 required area for a legal
building site. 4ssuming no parceling, -,.,e are left with whether
the duplex now is an existin_q nonconforming use. (If it was built
. eforc 15, _ 1'7 it r.roti ..- l y
If so, F:nd the owner owns contiguous land, :e would
have to insist that this land be allocated to support the duplex
c_nzity an would Sectien .
24-12. ) or, in the wternative, ,hat he :mac:- a variance. he
does not o,.-n coni icuo-as land, tii?n Your cllrf Its can enlov the
nonccn or.nin status oL his uso, but I �'C}uld reco,-,Lm nd that any
exemption be conditionnd 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 - '
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
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 8237
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
JOHN L. LAWRENCE
November 10, 1975
Mr. Hal Clark
Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Hal:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
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 22v50 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
not on 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,
_. '_ /4Z .
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,
ANDREW V. HECHT
for the Applicant