Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Metcalf Subd.1981V°�o� - C.C-- 1 Metcalf C 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Metcalf Subdivision Exception DATE: January 7, 1981 Zoning: R6 Residential Location: The NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen (along State Highway 82 near its intersection with Castle Creek) Lot Size: Approximately 13,800 square feet Background: On December 17, 197L2the Aspen City Council approved the subdivision of an approximately 44,250 square foot parcel owned by Mr. N.C. Herndon. Due to the failure of the applicant to record the final plat in a timely fashion, Mr. Herndon was required to re -submit the plat and received approval of the preliminary plat by P & Z on July 29, 1980 and final plat approval by City Council on August 11, 1980. At the time of the original preliminary plat review of the Herndon property by P & Z at a special meeting on July 31, 1979, it was noted that a question of an adverse possession claim existed with respect to a triangle of land within the subdivision containing approximately 2,072 square feet. This claim arose as a result of a wooden fence being placed on the property in the late 1950's which defined this boundary to the land. As the lot lines are now drawn, the house which is located on the adjacent property and is owned by the applicant, encroaches upon this property now located within the Herndon subdivision, and thus does not meet the code provisions requiring a five-foot setback between the side yard and the neighboring lot. Applicant's The applicant requestssubdivision exception waiving con - Request: ceptual plan review by City Council and preliminary plat review by P & Z for the purposes of adjusting the boundary line between the Metcalf and Herndon properties. The applicant states that the parties have agreed to resolve this issue through the procedure of boundary adjustment whereby the Metcalf lot would constitute 15,872 square feet and the Herndon lot would constitute 21,758 square feet. Both resulting lots would continue to meet with zoning requirements for the area requiring a lot size of at least 6000 square feet. Engineering The Engineering Department recommends approval of the appli- Department's cant's request for subdivison exception subject to the Comments: following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised plat for the Herndon Subdivision for final approval by the Engineering Department following approval of the application by P & Z and City Council. 2. Inclusion of the information indicated as missing from the submitted plat for the Metcalf Subdivision as described in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated November 21, 1980, which is attached for your review, The information should be included in the plat to be submitted to the Engineering Department for final approval. Page Two Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 7, 1981 Planning The Planning Office recommends approval fo the applicant's Office request for subdivision exception subject to the following Recommendation: conditions: 1. Submission of revised subdivision plats for the Herndon and Metcalf subdivisions. The revised plats should - reflect the addition of property to the Metcalf subdivision and deletion of property from the Herndon subdivision; and - meet the informational requirements for subdivision by including the information designated as lacking from the submitted plat, as described in the Engineering Department's memorandum of November 21, 1980, attached for your review. The revised plats should be submitted following approval of subdivision exception by P & Z and City Council. P & Z At its regular meeting on January 6, 1981, the Aspen Planning Recommendation: and Zoning Commission recommended subdivision exception for the purposes of adjusting the property boundary of the Metcalf subdivision. P & Z concurred with the conditions recommended by the Planning Office as they are written above. Council Should Council concur with the Planning Office and P & Z's Action: recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to except the Metcalf subdivision from full compliance with the subdivision regulations for purposes of adjusting the property boundary subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of revised subdivision plats for the Herndon and Metcalf subdivisions. The revised plats should - reflect the addition of property to the Metcalf sub- division and deletion of property from the Herndon subdivision; and - meet the informational requirements for subdivision by including the information designated as lacking from the submitted plat, as described in the Engineering Department's memorandum of November 21, 1980, attached for your review. The revised plats should be submitted following approval of subdivision exception by P & Z and City Council." 0 LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN LII ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH OUINN City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 December 19, 1980 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 Re: Application for an Exception from the definition of subdivision; Boundary Dispute Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent the Crystal Palace Corporation and Richard R. Grimes who, by the attached application dated November 10, 1980, seek an exception from the definition of subdivision in the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. By this letter, the applicants hereby agree that Final Plats conforming to Municipal Code Requirements for the Hernden Subdivision, as modified by Council's approval in January, 1981, shall be filed by April 1, 1981. Should any other information be required, we would be happy to supply it. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By B. Lee Schumacher BLS:ad CC: Bob Edmondson Acting City Attorney's Office 0 0 LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH OUINN City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 November 10, 1980 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Application for an Exception from of Subdivision; Boundary Dispute Ladies and Gentlemen: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 the Definition We represent the Crystal Palace Corporation who, by this application, seeks an exception from the definition of a subdivision (§20-19(a) Municipal Code of the City of Aspen) in connection with the proposed boundary readjustment of its lot situated in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West 6th P.M., City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and adjacent to the Herndon Subdivision. The property, which is zoned R6 Residential, is bound on the south by Colorado State Highway 82 and on the west by Castle Creek and now contains 13,800 square feet, more or less. The appli- cant, Crystal Palace Corporation, seeks to revise the recorded plat by subtracting from the recorded plat of the Herndon Subdivision a triangle of land containing 2,072 square feet, more or less. At the time the Herndon Subdivision preliminary plat was approved, it was noted in the special meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on July 31, 1979 that a question of an adverse possession claim existed with respect to this triangle of land. This claim arose as a result of a wooden fence being placed in the late 1950's in such a position as to define the boundary of this triangle of land. As the lot lines are now drawn, the house situate on the premises, now owned by the applicant, is an encroachment to the adjoining lot in the Herndon Subdivision and thus does not meet code provisions requiring a five-foot setback. OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN November 10, 1980 Page Two Therefore, the boundary the problem of the encroachment by problem of the adverse possession landowners. line adjustment would resolve both the existing structure and the dispute between the adjacent The resulting lot, with the addition of 2,072 square feet, would include 15,878 square feet, more or less. The lot from which the 2,072 square feet would come now includes 23,830 square feet; therefore, with the subtraction of 2,072 square feet, a lot size of 21,758 square feet would result. Both resulting lots would thus meet with zoning requirements in the area. The parties involved have agreed that the proper resolu- tion of the boundary dispute lies with the disputed triangle becoming the property of the corporation through Warranty Deed. Given that the principal purpose and intent of the subdi- vision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development and that the lots as adjusted will conform with setback requirements and zoning and in no way affect density, we believe that a subdivision exception is appropriate in this case. A revised survey accompanies this application. Naturally, we will be happy to supply you with any further information you might require. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By B. Lee Schumacher BLS: js cc: F. Mead Metcalf u 0 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 21, 1980 T0: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Louis Buettner, Engineering Department RE. Metcalf Subdivision Exception After reviewing the above subdivision exception plat and having made a site inspection the Engineering Department's comments are as follows: 1. The survey plat submitted for this subdivision exception is an improvement survey and so does not have the subdivision infor- mation as required by the Code. 2. The revised plat of the Herndon Subdivision should be reviewed with this exception. The property being added to Metcalf's is being deleted from the Herndon Subdivision. 3. The following information is missing from the submitted plat: a. Description of survey monuments found or set; b. Adjacent street and alley; C. Curb and gutter, with location from street right-of-way centerline; d. Easements; e. Adjacent lots and subdivisions; f. The property zoning; g. Approval certificate from City Engineer, Planning Commission, City Council (Clerk attestation), Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; h. The property description does not include the area northerly that is being acquired from the Herndon Subdivision. The Engineering Department recommends that this application is not placed before the Planning and Zoning Commission until the above items have been corrected and the new or revised submission has been reviewed by the Engineering Department. i 0 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: No comment M E M O R A N D U M Sunny Vann Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney Metcalf Subdivision Exception November 12, 1980 0 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Metcalf Subdivision Exception DATE: November 11, 1980 The attached application requests an exception from the definition of sub- division in connection with the proposed boundary readjustment of its lot situated in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West 6th P.M. in the City of Aspen. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission on December 2, 1980; therefore, may I have your comments no later than November 20, 1980? Thank you. LAW OFFICES OAT Es, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONA'_D 0. AUSTIN J. NI_HOLAS MCGRATM. JR. November 10, 1980 WILLIAM R. JOROAN III AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A- KNEZEVICM _ DEBORAH QUINN City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 - Aspen/Pitkin Planning Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Application for an Exception from the Definition of Subdivision; Boundary Dispute Ladies and Gentlemen: tie represent the Crystal Palace Corporation who, by this application, seeks an exception from the definition of a subdivision (§20-19(a) Municipal Code of the City of Aspen) in connection with the proposed boundary readjustment of its lot situated in the NW 1/4 of the Sw 1/4 Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West 6th P.M.,' City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and adjacent to the Herndon Subdivision. The property, which is zoned R6 Residential, is bound on the south by Colorado State Highway 82 and on the west by Castle Creek and now contains 13,800 square feet, more or less. The appli- cant, Crystal Palace Corporation, seeks to revise the recorded plat by subtracting from the recorded plat of the Herndon Subdivision a triangle of land containing 2,072 square feet, more or less. At the time the Herndon Subdivision preliminary plat was approved, it was noted in the special meeting of the Aspen Planning--'----.-, and Zoning Commission on July 31, 1979 that a question of an adverse - possession claim existed with respect to this triangle of land. This. claim arose as a result of a wooden fence being placed in the late -_ 1950's in such a position as to define the boundary of this triangle of land. As the lot lines are now drawn, the house situate on the premises, now owned by the applicant, is an encroachment to the -.== adjoining lot in the Herndon Subdivision and thus does not meet code:y_ 4 provisions requiring a five-foot setback. t OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH 8, JORDAN November 10, 1980 Page Two Therefore, the boundary the problem of the encroachment by problem of the adverse possession landowners. line adjustment would resolve both the existing structure and the dispute between the adjacent The resulting lot, with the addition of 2,072 square feet, would include 15,878 square feet, more or less. The lot from which the 2,072 square feet would come now includes 23,830 square feet; therefore, with the subtraction of 2,072 square feet, a lot size of 21,758 square feet would result. Both resulting lots would thus. meet with zoning requirements in the area. The parties involved have agreed that the proper resolu- tion of the boundary dispute lies with the disputed triangle becoming the property of the corporation through Warranty Deed. Given that the principal purpose and intent of the subdi- vision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development and that the lots as adjusted will conform with setback requirements and zoning and in no way affect density, we believe that a subdivision exception is appropriate in this case. A revised survey accompanies this application. Naturally, we will be happy to supply you with any further information you might require. Thank you for your cooperation. BLS: js cc: F. Mead Metcalf Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORD2),N By 4 ). Z�r B . Lee Schumacher ' a W4 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 63712 63713 63714 63715 63716 63717 City 00100 — 63721 63722 63723 63724 63725 63726 09009 — 00000 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 63062 63063 Check No Receipt No. P Subdivision/PUD Special Review P&Z Review Only Detailed Review Final Plat Special Approval Specially Assigned Conceptual Ap Preliminary Ar Final Applicati Exemption Rezoning Conditional Us County Land L GMP Sales Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Projec Phone Date: Go om w 0 O 0 0 0 0 z k < +.ti.. PowER �p �,N6 Q Q70-I— N ;'s o 0 ALPINE SURVEYS P.O. BOX 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303.925- 2688 iS03°09 W 2.2 FND N87°23 W 066 09 t 3`n 602 ON O~ 0 ro 0 Nq/-LgM 0 sTRE�, r co NOTES: I. FND.: FOUND NO.5 RE BAR WITHOUT CAP DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 (ALSO SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOT 9), SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P. M. , PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY N0.82 AT THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE CITY LIMITS; THENCE N75009'11"W 161.68 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY; THENCE NOI0OO'00"E 69.18 FEET; THENCE S87023'00"E 167.44 FEET; THENCE S 10� 15' 00"W 95.76 FEET; THENCE S 7;09' 1 1 " E 6.02 FEET; THENCE S07*3B'00"W 7.25 FEET TO THE POINTOF BEGINNING CONTAINING 13806 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. SUHVLYLU: I Utl tNtN i'Nj its DRAFTED : 7 DECEMBER 1978 JD REVISIONS: 15 OCT. 198Q ADD NEW PARCEL TO THE NORTH N 0 10 20 40 60 80 100 FT SCALE I"= 20' BASIS OF BEARING: ASPEN TO ASPEN AZIMUTH S 080 22'08" E SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON DECEMBER I, 1978, OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 267 AT PAGE 894, PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS, AND THAT THE TWO STORY FRAME HOUSE WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATED AS SHOWN HEREON. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS -OF -WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN. ALPINE SURVEYS DECEMBER 12, 1978 CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION by MES F. RESER 'L.S. 9184 If)R K10 : 0.7R• 24A CLIENT: METCALF SHEET NO. I of I