HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Lots20&21,Blk1-Riverside-Addition.1978
R~orde~ at 2:08 P.M., Sept 18,1978 Loretta Banner Recorder
Reception No:
207446
/
1._.
, . , .,
l!Illllt3S' Htf916
1
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
~lliEREAS JOSEPH M, and MABEL J, LACY are the owners of
a parcel of land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more
particularly described as: '
Lots 20 and 21, South 70 feet of Lots 22 and 23,
Block 1, Riverside Addition,
City of Aspen, County of Pitkin,
w~EREAS the Applicants have an existing duplex located on
Lots 20 and 21, South 70 feet of Lots 22 and 23, Block 1,
Riverside Addition,
~EREAS Applicants have requested an exemption from the
definition of subdivision for the purpose of subdividing the
existing duplex through condominiumiztion, and
IVHEREAS the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at its
meeting held on the ~day of ~~~ ,19~, determined
that an exemotion from the definit on 0 subdiVISion is
appropriate and recommended that the same be granted, and
~EREAS the City Council determined that the subdivision
of the existing duplex through condominiumization is not within
the intent and puroose of the subdivision ordinance set forth
in Chanter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado does
hereby determine that the proposed subdivision of the duplex
located on Lots 20 and 21, South 70 feet of Lots 22 and 23,
Block 1, Riverside Addition, City of Aspen, by its condominiurni-
zation, is not within the intents and purpose of the subdivision
ordinance and does, for such reason, grant an exemption from the
definition of such action,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that any existing tenants be given
written notice when their units are offered for sale, which
notice shall specify the sale price, Each tenant shall have a
90-day option to purchase this unit at this price. In addition,
each tenant shall have a 90-day exclusive non-assignable right
of first refusal to purchase his/her unit which shall commence
when a bona fide offer is made by a third person and accepted
by the o~mers. In the event that such offer is made while the
90-day option is still in effect, the tenant may purchase the
unit for the amount of the initial sales price or the amount
of the boan fide offer, whichever is less', and, provided,
however, that all units shall be rest' ted t six- (6) month
minimum leases with no more than tw ) s. er tenancies
per year.
DATED: ~'i"5, 1978.
III,
J
~
l!Il0ll354 PAtl975
~H-
I, KATHRYN S. }:! IT 1:. do hereby certify that the fore-
going Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision
was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its
regular meeting held Monday, ~ ~-?'- , 1978,
at which time the Mayor, Stacy Stan ey, III, was authbi':j!:;;ed
to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen., . i".c.""
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
""0"'_,, :t
, "% [J' "!JJ
. ~ 0. J r
, ,,' '.....<'"-.-. .//)
KA~~~ct~.
VA;, .!.I..,." r'1" 6" ,"-',
,,~rJ.,4 '. _~.. s..."./" J><.:..l : ~ "-
. - ,,;
':4 \>'';'': _i.~:w'--:
COUNTY OF PITKIN
.'
~-.,. -"'" --.
.
v. ,{ ,)
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this/~
day of September, 1978, by Stacy Standley, III, and Kathryn S.
Hauter, personally known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerck
respectively, of the City of Aspen.
"\\\\1111"",,
Witness my hand and Offici;; ;eal. .....~",c'.CG;:;CJ70~.:
My commission expires _..., h.('J /<!, /Cjll./l-..... ..('iv. ~
~ '~~' ~" ,\,-::("
-, ? /~ '- ,:
. ::"'. tf ~,
"
Notary Public ..... <.
.,,'<n; V
.
-2-
-
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice
RE: Lacy Duplex - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: April 20, 1978
.
The attached application requests exemption from Subdivision for the Condomin-
umization of a new duplex located on Lots 20 and 21, and the south 70 feet of
Lots 22 and 23, Block I, of the Riverside Subdivision (R-15 zone). This pro-
perty is owned by Joseph and Mabel Lacy.
,
The Housing Authority, t~arc Danielson, states that since this is a new duplex
it could not be construed to reduce the supply of low and moderate housing
although it obviously does not add to that supply. Furthermore, he suggests
it be noted that Item B of Ordinance #53 is applicable, that is, "All units
shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2)
shorter tenencies per year.
Dave Ellis recommends that the exemption be granted subject to one condition
regarding the driveway ramp. To access the lower level parking area, a ramp
is necessary. Dave suggests that the beginning of this ramp should be set
back a mi nimum of ten feet from the paved roadway so as not to interfere with
on-street parking and possible roadway improvements.
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the exemption
request at their regular meeting on April 18, 1978 subject to: (1) Item B of
Ordinance #53 and (2) the beginning of the driveway ramp to access the lower
parkihg level being set back at least 10 feet from the paved roadway.
1.z1.Jfu~ ~ - ~ W-i1l1 ~
Pi" 2s u-uJLi hw vuJ W; f>1i1 ~
~ ~ CW.JCiU-iOM. +U i f n.J
~.
.
/".',
APPLICA TION FOR EXEMPTION
FROFniDTIIJ I VI sIoI-r-EI:i;uViTION S
---------------------
Request is hereby made on behalf of Joseph M. Lacy and
Mabel J, Lacy, hereinafter referred to as Applicants, under
Section 20-19 of the ~spen, Colorado, Subdivision Regulations,
for exemption from the definition of the term "Subdivision"
with respect to the real property described as:
Lots 20 and 21, South 70 feet of
Lots 22 and 23, Block 1,
Riverside Addition
City of Aspen
It is submitted that an exemption in the case would be appropriate '.
"
The application involves subdivision of an existing duplex.
A subdivision of one (1) lot with a duplex on it creates condi-
tions whereby strict compliance with subdivision regulations
would deprive the'Applicants of the reasonable use of their
land. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the property
will have a common interest in the land; and there will be a
condominium declaration and maintenance agreement applicable to
the property which will not in any way increase the land use
impact of the property. An exemption in this case will not
conflict with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regula-
tions which are directed to assist the 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.
The granting of this application will not undermine the
intent of the subdivision regulations as it is clearly within the
area intended for exemption under Section 20-19. The building
is already in existence, and there will be no change in density
which is presently in ~ine with the desired population density
"
for the property.
,
....",
The Applicants would appreciate your consideration of
this application at your next regular meeting.
By: J~g,^-
Gideon Kau man
Attorney for Joseph M. Lacy
and ~abel J. Lacy
DATED THIS
day of March, 1978.
.
"
..
,
"
.
~
-2-
MEMO
TO:
RICHARD GRICE
PLANNING
FROM:
DAVE ELLIS ~
ENGINEERING ~
DATE:
April 17, 1978
RE:
Subdivision Exemption Request for Lots 20 - 23,
Block 1, Riverside Addition
The Engineering Department recommends that this
exemption be granted subject to one condition regarding
the driveway ramp. To access the lower level parking area
a ramp is necessary. The beginning of this ramp should be
set back a minimum of ten feet from the paved roadway so
as not to interfere with on-street parking and possible
roadway improvements.
jk
"
, ,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice
RE: Lacy Duplex - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: April 20, 1978
The attached application requests exemption from Subdivision for the Condomin-
umization of a new duplex located on Lots 20 and 21, and the south 70 feet of
Lots 22 and 23, Block 1, of the Riverside Subdivision (R-15 zone). This pro-
perty is owned by Joseph and Mabel Lacy.
,
The Housing Authority, r~arc Danielson, states that since this is a ne\~ duplex
it could not be construed to reduce the supply of low and moderate housing
although it obviously does not add to that supply. Furthermore, he suggests
it be noted that Item B of Ordinance #53 is applicable, that is, "All units
shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2)
shorter tenencies per year.
Dave Ell is recommends that the exemption be granted subject to one condition
regarding the driveway ramp. , To access the lower level parking area, a ramp
is necessary. Dave suggests that the beginning of this ramp should be set
back a minimum of ten feet from the paved roadway so as not to interfere with
on-street parking and possible roadway improvements.
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the exemption
request at their regular meeting on April 18, 1978 subject to: (1) Item B of
Ordinance #53 and (2) the beginning of the driveway ramp to access the lower
parking level being set back at least 10 feet from the paved roadway.
..
.
.
".'..
...,
......"'"
'-....".....
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION.
FROWS jjEiJI vISTa fn~i: c;DfJ:1'I ON S
-----------------------
Request is hereby made on behalf of Joseph M. Lacy and
Mabel J. Lacy, hereinafter referred to as Applicants, under
Section 20-19 of the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Regulations,
for exemption from the definition of the term "Subdivision"
,
with respect to the real property described as:
Lots 20 and 21, South 70 feet of
Lots 22 and 23, Block 1,
Riverside Addition
City of Aspen
It is submitted that an exemption in the case would be appropriate.
The application involves subdivision of an existin? duplex.
A subdivision of one (1) lot with a duplex on it creates condi-
tions whereby strict compliance with subdivision regulations
would deprive the'Applicants of the reasonable use of their
land. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the property
will have a common interest in the land; and there will be a
condominium declaration and maintenance agreement applicable to
the property which will not in anyway increase the land use
impact of the property. An exemption in this case will not
conflict with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regula-
<,
tions which are directed to assist the 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.
The granting of this application will not undermine the
intent of the subdivision regulations as it is clearly within the
area intended for exemption under Section 20-19. The buildinr.
is already in existence, and there will be no change in density
which is presently in line with the desired population density
.
for the property.
,..
,.....
, ,~
The Applicants would appreciate your consideration of
this application at your next regular meeting.
.
By:_~!~J? _______
Gideon Kaufiltan
Attorney for Joseph M. Lacy
and Mabel J. Lacy
DATED THIS
day of March, 1978.
,
"
It
..
,
.
~
-L-
'''''''',
/"">
J -
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
TO: Marc Danielson
Dave Ell is
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Lacy - Application for Exemption from Subdivision Regulations
DATE: April 3, 1978
Attached for your revie~1 and comments are the prel iminary plat and
application for exemption from Subdivision Regulations of Joseph and Mabel
Lacy for a duplex in the Riverside Addition. As the duplex, which is in
the process of being built, has therefore never been occupied, Ordinance #53
has not been addressed. I have tentatively scheduled this for the April 18th
City P & Z meeting. Please return written comments to the Planning Office
by the Tuesday (April 11th) prior.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice
RE: Lacy Duplex - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: April 18, 1978
The attached application requests exemption from Subdivision for the
condominiumization of a new duplex located on lots 20 and 21, and the south
70 feet of lots 22 and 23, Block 1, of the Riverside Subdivision (R-15 zone).
This property is owned by Joseph and Mabel Lacy.
The Housing Authority, Marc Danielson, states that since this is a new
duplex it could not be construed to reduce the supply of low and moderate
housing although it obviously does not add to that supply. Furthermore,
he suggests it be noted that Item B of Ordinance #53 is applicable, that
is, "All units shall be restricted -tQ-~jl( {6} 1lJ.Qt\tb.,JIlinimwnleas.es with no
more~lI~J.wQ,m:~Tiiiffer~ll~ii'C:re:sH_p'eryear. "
At the time of this writting, we have not recieved comment from the
City Engineer. We will, however, have those comments prior to this meeting.
The Planning Office recommends approval subject to a six month minimum
lease and contingent upon comments from the Engineer.
~. ~ ri!N1,~~L"l~
I ~"\.'li~ ~ G~ ~ ' i ,J
.~V-:UJ *' ~~ ~~
-" ~ tt. ::;t.::..'t> hi ~~
~..1. -L-: w (J7\~~~
.../l>> QA.. /"-~. ' .
f~~~N~~
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of Joseph M. Lacy and
Mabel J. Lacy, hereinafter referred to as Applicants, under
Section 20-19 of the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Regulations,
for exemption from the definition of the term "Subdivision"
with respect to the real property described as:
Lots 20 and 21, South 70 feet of
Lots 22 and 23, Block 1,
Riverside Addition
City of Aspen
It is submitted that an exemption in the case would be appropriate.
The application involves subdivision of an existing duplex.
A subdivision of one (1) lot with a duplex on it creates condi-
tions whereby strict compliance with subdivision regulations
would deprive the Applicants of the reasonable use of their
land. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the property
will have a common interest in the land; and there will be a
condominium declaration and maintenance agreement applicable to
the property which will not in any way increase the land use
impact of the property. An exemption in this case will not
conflict with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regula-
tions which are directed to assist the 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.
The granting of this application will not undermine the
intent of the subdivision regulations as it is clearly within the
area intended for exemption under Section 20-19. The building
is already in existence, and there will be no change in density
which is presently in line with the desired population density
for the property.
. ~
The Applicants would appreciate your consideration of
this application at your next regular meeting.
By: k. ~'________
Gideon Ka~
Attorney for Joseph M. Lacy
and Mabel J. Lacy
DATED THIS __ day of March, 1978.
-2-