The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ec.Metcalf Subd.1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office DATE: January RE: Metcalf Subdivision Exception Zoning: Location: Lot Size: Background: Applicant's Request: Engi neeri ng Department's Comments: 7,1981 ~/ ~~ ~~. R6 Residential ~ ~ /; -.. 'tj'.-t-? // -/ /' l(d1b<~ 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) Approximately 13,800 square feet On December 17, 197~ the Aspen Gity 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. The applicant requests subdivision exception waiving con- 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. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the appli- cant's request for subdivison exception subject to the 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 Janua ry 7, 1981 Planning Office Recommendation: P & Z Recommendation: Council Action: The Planning Office recommends approval fo the applicant's request for subdivision exception 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 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. At its regular meeting on January 6,1981, the Aspen Planning 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. Should Council concur with the Planning Office and P & Z's recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to except the Metca 1 f subdi vi s i on from full comp 1 i ance 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." ".... '-' -. LAW O~r:-ICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES RONALD O. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. WI LLIAM R. JORDAN rn ROBERT W. HUGHES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A. KNE:ZEV1CH DEBORAH QUINN December 19, 1980 City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 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 8. 0L .5rh( lfYYJC()eJZ) B. Lee Schumacher BLS:ad CC: Bob Edmondson Acting City Attorney's Office ,-, ......... 1""--" LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE L.EONARD M. OATES RONAL.D Q. AUSTIN ,J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. .JR. WILLIAM R. ..I0RDAN m ROBERT W, HUGHES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 November 10, 1980 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH 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 Ci ty Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Application for an Exception from of Subdivision; Boundary Dispute the Definition /~ Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent the Crystal Palace corporation who, by this application, seeks an exception from the definition of a subdivision (S20-19(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 8. ..JORDAN November 10, 1980 Page Two Therefore, the boundary line adjustment would resolve both the problem of the encroachment by the existing structure and the problem of the adverse possession dispute between the adjacent landowners. 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 13. Let:.\.. CY hi AlY1Jche9 , B. Lee Schumacher - BLS:js cc: F. Mead Metcalf ,...., - MEMORANDUM DATE: November 21, 1980 TO, 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 Eng ineering Department's comments are as follow s: 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 centerl ine; 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 Subdiv i sion. 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. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: c o fiL ------------------------------------------------------------ No comment M E M 0 RAN DUM Sunny Vann Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney Metcalf Subdivision Exception November 12, 1980 o ,..'" ...J MEMORANDU~1 TO: City Attorney City Engi neer 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 OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN oJ. NI::I-'O\..AS M~ORAr)ot. .JR. WII.LlAM R. ,JO~OAN to ROaiC",T W. HUGME;S ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 November 10, 1980 ....R~A COOE 303 TELE:PHONi: 92'5-2800 RICI-lARD A. KNe:.n:VICH D<:aOR4,M OUINN 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: . ,~'-;'- .~ ~'- . ;;:~t::......>~ . 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.ti;;;.,,~;.t'i~ provisions requiring a five-foot setback. . "" ....., OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN November 10, 1980 .Page Two Therefore, the boundary line adjustment would resolve both the problem of the encroachment by the existing structure and the problem of the adverse possession dispute between the adjacent landowners. 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 13. Lf"z "- CY h(//y!')Chpp, B. Lee Sch~~acher - BLS:js cc: F. Mead Metcalf ..:: i::~;.'i:~~"-"~' ~..,"- - f:~~':~-": :---::-:",?,-:-.:-'.'-" .- . .,;:~~~;;{flll. c--~;.-:.r~.-' -.'-"c,-,.<" ';~~~:!.2r] ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LANO USE APPLlCA TION FEES County 00100 - 63711 09009 - 00000 63712 63713 63714 63715 63716 63717 City 00100 - 63721 09009 - 00000 63722 63723 63724 63725 63726 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 - 63061 09009 - 00000 63062 63063 Name: Subdivision/PUD Special Review P&Z Review Only Detailed Review Final Plat Special Approval Specially Assigned Conceptual Application Preliminary Application Final Application Exem ption Rezoning Conditional Use County land Use Sales GMP Sales Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Project: Address: Phone: Check No. Date: Receipt No. P