Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Schwartzbach 901-911 E. Durantk,D\c6o - e-* Oft Schwartzbach 901 - 911 K. Durant., 1:1 A J 1 i I .m z w z / � J V / cr w w 3 w rn rL Cl' ---6"CIP SCALED FROM CITY MAP_3___ D__t '_R_A—N_T—� Q -- F -SEWER LINE CURB d GUTTER --"- ALPINE SURVEYS P. 0. Box 1730 Aspen,Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 FOUND: REBAR W/ PLAS.CAP I C QIA4 I. CAP OUTNUMBER SURVEYED: 4 APRIL 1980 PB DRAFTED: 4 APRIL 1980 DMc REVISIONS: 0 5 10 20 30 40 5OFT. SCALE: I°= 10' BASIS OF BEARING: FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN SURVE_Y_OR�S_CERTI-FICATE __ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON APRIL4,1980, OF LOTS A, B BI C , BLOCK 1 19 , CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. THE ONE STORY HOUSE WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVE- MENTS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS- OF -WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN. ALPINE SURVEYS by: TAMES F. RESER APRIL 7 1980 L.S. 9184 �C, F. ��1ST6k�.o F ].EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED. cj 1 8.4 j c7 TITLE: EXEMPTION PLAT LOTS A, B & C BLOCK 119 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO JOB NO.: 79- 45-2 CLIENT: SCHWARTJ SHEET • ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100 — 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Name:, ` - _ Project: Address:IR 7 !a Phone: S/70 Check No./d1 Date: Receipt No. P 0 • HOLLAND & MART ATTORNEYS AT LAW 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET TELEPHONE 575-8000 SUITE 2900 AREA CODE 303 DENVER,COLORADO MAILING ADDRESS. P.O. BOX 8749 DENVER. COLORADO 80201 CHARLES T. BRANDT PLEASE REPLY TO. (303) 925-3476 434 E COOPER STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA CODE 303 May 7, 1980 HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 S Galena Aspen, Colo. 81611 CABLE ADDRESS HOLHART, DENVER TELECOPIER (303) 575-6261 Re: Application for Saul N. Schwartzbach for Exemption from Aspen Subdivision Regulations Sirs: Enclosed please find the above -referenced Application, together with our check in the amount of $50.00 in payment of the required Exemption Fee and 3 copies of a plat of this property. Please set this matter for consideration by the Planning and zoning Commission at the earliest con- venient date. Very ruly yours, harles T. Brandt for Holland & Hart CTB/dv Enclosure cc: Saul N. Schwartzbach APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM ASPEN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the undersigned hereby submits to the Aspen Planning Commission this written application for exemption from the definition of a subdivision as set forth in the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Regulations. The applicant is the owner of the following -described real estate located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to wit: Lots A, B and C, Block 119, City and Townsite of Aspen. The existing single family dwelling on the above described real property has been removed. The applicant intends to construct a residential duplex on the real property and desires to condominiumize the duplex structure into two separate condominium units. The applicant respect- fully requests exemption from the definition of a subdivi- sion for the following reasons: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Condominiumization of new structures in the City of Aspen has uni- formly been granted by the City of Aspen subject to the imposition of certain conditions. To compel the applicant to process his condomin- iumization under the applicable subdivision regulations would be an undue burden and incon- sistent with the established precedent. 2. The exemption is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. For the reasons stated above, the pursuit of subdivision approval would hinder the applicant in offering one of the two duplex condominium units for sale and would be incon- sistent with the precedent established on such matters. 3. Granting the exemption will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. The supply of low and moderate income housing will not be reduced by the con- dominiumization of a newly -constructed duplex. The established precedent of exempting condo- miniumization of new structures from the Subdivision Regulation evidences recognition that the public welfare and other property rights are not detrimentaly affected by such condomin- iumization. • 0 4. The division of land here involved is not within the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regu- lation. That purpose is "to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of population and coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs; to encourage well -planned subdivision by setting standards for subdivision design and improve- ments; to improve land records and survey monu- ments by establishing standards for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide con- sumer protection for the purchaser; to acquire desirable public areas; and to otherwise promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the City of Aspen." Section 20-2, Purpose and Intent. Condominiumi- zation of a newly -constructed duplex does not compromise the above -listed concerns intended to be addressed by the Subdivision Regulations, and is thus not within the intent and purpose of those regulations. 5. Section 20-22, Condominiumization, does not apply to this case because a new duplex struc- tured is to be constructed, so that tenant displacement and reduction of low and moderate income housing will not occur if the duplex is condominiumized. RespeQtfully submitted, Charles T. Brandt, Attorney for Saul M. Schwartzbach - 2 - MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney, Ron Stock City Engineer, Dan McArthur FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption DATE: May 12, 1980 The attached is an application for subdivision exemption submitted by Saul N. Schwartzbach for the property located on West End and Durant Avenues. This item is to come before Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17, 1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments no later than May 27, 1980? Thank you. (The early due -date for your referral takes into account my vacation the first two weeks of June.) • HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW WASHINGTON, O. C. OFFICE 1875 EYE STREET, N. W. MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING SUITE 1200 434 EAST COOPER STREET WAS HIN GTO N, D. C.20006 TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340 ASPEN, COLORA00 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 CHARLES T. BRANDT (303) 925-3476 August 26, 1980 Mr. Ronald Stock City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 DENVER COLORADO OFFICE S55 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2900 DENVER,COLORAOO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000 Re: Landow/Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption Applications (Condominiumization of 2 duplexes presently under construction) Dear Ron: I am writing to set forth the position of Messrs. Landow and Schwartzbach with respect to the referenced subdivision -- exemption request. The applications were recommended for approval by the Planning Office on June 9, 1980, and were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17, 1980. At that time the applications were tabled pending consideration of the issue of whether the proposed condominiumizations will reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. Sunny Vann, Jim Rentz and I have agreed to table the applications pending receipt at your opinion on the applicability of Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code to new structures. The acquisition and rental history of the two properties is as follows. Nathan Landow acquired Lots D and E, Block 119, in September of 1978. Mr. Schwartzbach acquired the adjacent 3 lots, A, B and C, Block 119, in April, 1979. Since their acquisition the one-story houses existing on both prop- erties have been rented at rates within the low, moderate, and middle housing price guidelines. The tenants were given notice to vacate the premises as of April of 1980. Following vacation by the tenants the existing buildings were demolished pursuant to building permits for such demo- lition. Prior to demolition, the owners had.offered the houses HOLLAND & DART Mr. Ronald Stock August 26, 1980 Page Two to City of Aspen, to be moved and used as employee housing elsewhere. The City refused this offer. According to Jim Rentz, the houses were not habitable because they did not meet the building or thermal codes, and his office determined that bringing the buildings up to code would be prohibitively expensive. Messrs. Landow and Schwartzbach wish to condominiumize the duplexes presently being constructed on their property. Objections have been raised to these exemptions on the grounds that since the owners required their tenants to vacate the houses, they failed to demonstrate that condominiumization will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing, as required by the Aspen Municipal Code Section 20-22(c). It is our position that Section 20-22(c) is a condominium conversion ordinance and as such does not apply to condo- miniumization of new structures. That section requires an applicant to demonstrate that "approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing." What is requested, however, is the approval for condominiumization of two new buildings. In short, new buildings without a rental history cannot possibly reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. In addition, other language of Section 20-22(c) of the Code, delineating criteria for determination of whether a particular conversion will reduce housing supply, reinforces the conclusion that this section of the code applies to condominium conversions and not to condominiumization of new structures. Section 20-22(3) requires that existing tenants be given written notice when their units is offered for sale..." Section 20-22(c) (1) refers to "tenants displacement as a result of the conversion." (Emphasis supplied) Section 20-22(c) (4) refers to increases in the rental price of the unit after condominiumization. Moreover, Section 20-22 contains an exception for "lawfull displacement," which applies to the property in question. The tenants were required to vacate the buildings so that they could be demolished. The buildings had been offered to the City but were rejected because they were virtually unhabitable for failure to meet City building codes. Aspen .j • IIOLLAND B.IIART • Mr. Ronald Stock August 26, 1980 Page Three Municipal Code, Section 7-142 (a) provides "it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to . . . use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the City or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this code." Under this provision, continued occupancy by the tenants of this sub -code building was unlawful. Thus any displacement of tenants unlawfully occupying the building constituted "lawful displacement" under Code Section 20-22(c)(2), and makes evidence of such displacement irrelevant to a determination of whether the subdivision exemption sought for the new duplex units would reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this question further should you wish. Your prompt opinion on the foregoing issues would-be greatly appreciated. CTB/f h cc: Nathan Landow Saul M. Schwartzbach Sunny Vann Very truly yours, C-L'Ll'- Charles T. Brandt for Holland & Hart �y 7� u�v�T.s L'tc'y WA M E M O R A N D U M TO: Sunny Vann, r FROM: Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney RE: Landow/Schwartzback Subdivision Exemption DATE: November 17, 1980 Further comments on Landow/Schwartzback: Existing Tenants Sec. 20-22(a). For this section the logical interpretation seems to be for conversion only as it states, "the tenants be given notice of the sale of their unit." This implies that it is the unit they are presently living in. I would agree with Brandt on this section. Displacement 20-22(c)(1)does refer to the term "conversion". 20-22(c)(4) does refer to the term units, when it states that rental units will not be substantially increased. This would seem to mean the actual unit the tenant lived in. These sections do seem to infer that 20-22 is a condominium conversion ordinance and would not be controlling for new structures. The argument on lawful displacement seems a bit self serving for it would imply that if a building is allowed to exist below code requirements the owner can lawfully displace tenants. Also, the knowledge of the building being sub -code was found after the tenants were displaced. As to the intent of the ordinance and the history of its enforcement I leave that to you for comment. As I have stated previously, the overall impact whether a building is converted to condominiums or the building is removed or destroyed and new units built the employee housing pool is reduced. Memorandum Sunny Vann Page Two November 17, 1980 Also, another argument of Brandt's is the buildings are new and do not have a rental history. The question arises, Do buildings have a history or does the parcel of land? The situation here seems to be "How has the ordinance been interpreted in the past"? For in actuality Existing Tenants could be interpreted as the last tenants to live in the old building. Conversion could speak to the conversion from old building to new. These arguments are stretching the point. The situation seems to be one where the city should look to the availability of other ordinances, example "Bonus Overlay", that would allow the new free market units and minimize the loss of employee housing. My gut feeling is that the ordinance was written for the straight conversion and not new construction, but this is a policy decision. LAW OFFICES GRUETER & EDMONDSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 430 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303-925-4544 ROBERT P. GRUETER ROBERT B. EDMONDSON GARY S. ESARY October 15, 1980 Sunny Vann Planning Department 130 S. Galena City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Landow/Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption Application Dear Sunny: The Landow/Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption Application presents a unique problem. In my opinion Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code is vague as to this question: Are new structures within the purview of rental history guidelines when old structures are removed in order to construct new structures? The bottom line in this instance is that employee housing is impacted as there is a reduction of employee units. The question seems to be one of policy. Is this the type of situation the Council intended to come within the rental history and deed restriction guidelines? Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Very truly yours, GRUETER & EDMONDSON, P.C. Robert B. Edmondson RBE:djf CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena treet aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 1980 TO: Sunny Vance^ FROM: Ron Stock S RE: Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption If the above entitled subdivision exemption is granted, the approval should be conditioned upon the applicant meeting the following requirements of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen: [ ] Notice and option provisions to current tenants [x] Each unit restricted to six-month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenan- cies in a calendar year. RWS:mc No. 13-80 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: May 15, 1980 STAFF: Sunny Vann 2. APPLICANT: Saul Schwartzbach 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Chuck Brandt, Holland & Hart 925-3476 4. PROJECT NAME: Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemati-Qn-_. 5. LOCATION: 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC 7. REFERRALS: ✓Attorney ✓Engineering Dept. Housing I for City Electric Subdivision Exception ✓ Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: 3Z Stream Margin 8040 Greenline View Plane Conditional Use Other Sanitation District School District Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Parks State Highway Dept. Holy Cross Electric .--,--Other Mountain Bell w L7 9. DISPOSITION: P & Z_ J Approved v _ DeniedDate kJQ -,(V-2 ��i ►9S� AV &011 k v -,A- v-) 61"t- 4v.. h \ w% A r ?A 3—c- i � S 4F 014;a \.\, NQM— e. A O F 5, ?r X o —A aLc,Qn oo w,.k • zo -- Council `J Approved " Denied Date VJL� 10. ROUTING: Attorney Quilling Engineering Other MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption DATE: June 9, 1980, updated December 2, 1980i)APPROVED AS TO,FORM: ZCi d. Zoning: R/MF, Residential/Multi- amily i Location: 901 & 911 East Durant Lots A,B, �C, Block 119, City and Townsite of Aspen). Lot Size: 9,000 square feet Rental History: Not applicable; proposed duplex. The previously existing single family unit has been removed. Housing Director's Comments: Not applicable. Engineering Department's Comments: The Engineering Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for subdivision exemption subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1) That the owner/applicant submit a site plan to indi- cate the following: A) Show parking spaces as required by the municipal code. B) Show sidewalk on both the West End Street and Durant Avenue frontages. C) Show new construction indicating setbacks from property line. D) Indicate iiIdividual units and areas reserved for common use (ie. shared mechanical rooms, utility areas, parking, etc.). 2) That the owner/applicant be required to construct a sidewalk along both frontages including a ramp for the handicapped at the corner. Attorney's Comments: If the applicant's request for subdivison exemption is granted, the approval should be conditioned upon the si)x-month minimum lease restriction for all units, pursuant to Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the appli- cant's request for subdivision exemption subject to: 1) The applicant complying with the conditions des- cribed in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated June 4, 1980, as quoted above, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2) The applicant meeting the requirement of six-month minimum leases, pursuant to Section 20-22, and 3) The applicant noting that units having more than three bedrooms in the R/MF Zone district require special review approval, as outlined in Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code. Memo: Schwartzbach&bdivision Exemption • June 9, 1980, Decemb�lr 2, 1980 Page Two P & Z Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with the Planning Office''s recommendation at its November 18, 1980 meeting. Council Action: Should City Council also concur, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to approve the Schwartzbach request for subdi- vision exemption for the purpose of condominiumization subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant complying with the conditions described in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated June 4, 1980. 2, The applicant complying with the six-month minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22. I�01.I. N N I I &` I I:1RT ATTORNEYS Al LAW 55S SEVENTEENTH STREET TELEPHONE 575-8000 SUITE 2900 CABLE ADDRESS AREA CODE 303 LIENVER. COLORADO HOLHART,DENVER MAILING ADDRESS TELECOPIER 4303) 575-8261 PO BOX 87•t9 DENVER. COLORADO 802U1 CHARLES T. BRANDT PLEASE REPLY TO 4303) 925-3476 434 E COOPER STREET. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE" 925.3476 AREA CODE 303 May 7, 1980 HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 S Galena Aspen, Colo. 81611 Re: Application for Saul N. Schwartzbach for Exemption from Aspen Subdivision Regulations Sirs: Enclosed please find the above -referenced Application, together with our check in the amount of $50.00 in payment of the required Exemption Fee and 3 copies of a plat of this property. Please set this matter for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the earliest con- venient date. Very ,truly yours, Charles T. Brandt for Holland & Hart CTB/dv Enclosure cc: Saul N. Schwartzbach t . 1t 0 0 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM ASPEN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Pursuant to Section 20-1.9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the undersigned hereby submits to the Aspen Planning Commission this written application for exemption from the definition of a subdivision as set forth in the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Regulations. The applicant is the owner of the following -described real estate located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to wit: Lots A, B and C, Block 119, City and Townsite of Aspen. The existing single family dwelling on the above described real property has been removed. The applicant intends to construct a residential duplex on the real property and desires to condominiumize the duplex structure into two separate condominium units. The applicant respect- fully requests exemption from the definition of a subdivi- sion for the following reasons: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter_ would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Condominiumization of new structures in the City of Aspen has uni- formly been granted by the City of Aspen subject to the imposition of certain conditions. To compel the applicant to process his condomin- iumization under the applicable subdivision regulations would be an undue burden and incon- sistent with the established precedent. 2. The exemption is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. For the reasons stated above, the pursuit of subdivision approval would hinder the applicant in offering one of the two duplex condominium units for sale and would be incon- sistent with the precedent established on such matters. 3. Granting the exemption will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. The supply of low and moderate income housing will not be reduced by the con- dominiumization of a newly -constructed duplex. The established precedent of exempting condo- miniumization of new structures from the Subdivision Regulation evidences recognition that the public welfare and other property rights are not detrimentaly affected by such condomin- iumization. r 4. The division of land here involved is not within the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regu- lation. That purpose is "to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of population and coordinate the need for public services with governme;ital improvement programs; to encourage well -planned subdivision by setting standards for subdivision design and improve- ments; to improve land records and survey monu- ments by establishing standards for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide con- sumer protection for the purchaser; to acquire desirable public areas; and to otherwise promote. the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the City of Aspen." Section 20-2, Purpose and Intent. Condominiumi- zation of a newly -constructed duplex does not compromise the above -listed concerns intended to be addressed by the Subdivision Regulations, and is thus not within the intent and purpose of those regulations. 5. Section 20-22, Condominiumization, does not apply to this case because a new duplex struc- tured is to be constructed, so that tenant displacement and reduction of low and moderate income housing will not occur if the duplex is condominiumized. Respegtfully submitted, Charles T. Brandt, Attorney for Saul M. Schwartzbach MM MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: June 4, 1980 RE: Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption, Lots A,B, and C, Block 119 O.A.T. Having reviewed the above application for subdivision exemption and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department recommends the following: 1) That the owner/applicant submit a site plan to indicate the following: A) Show parking spaces as required by the municipal code. B) Show sidewalk on both the West End Street and Durant Ave- nue frontages. C) Show new construction indicating setbacks from property line. D) Indicate individual units and areas reserved for common use (ie. shared mechanical rooms, utility areas, parking, etc.) 2) That the owner/applicant be required to construct sidewalk along both frontages including a handicapped ramp at the corner. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the Schwartz- bach Subdivision Exemption provided the owner/applicant complies with the above conditions.