HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Nitze/Stunda Line Adjustment
c
CASELOAD SUMMARy SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 7lr/!?'i? L ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: .3 sA - 8"
~ la STAFF MEMBER: C \"'-~
PR<A!ECT NAME!I,y:U I Jft!fl'fJ V /11fTsw.klJl1iI1lzIL
ProJect Add;i~ ~
APPLICANT:
:::::A::~;r1lKVfJJJ(iJoflf' 1M "'lip q' 11 '1M
Representative~ress/Pho~ 11/1-.1(../1 'JJI{, ? 0 y, b
=============================~=======================~:L~===
PAID: @ NO AMOUNT: ~rn 'J/'tf. t7iJ
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION:
V
1 STEP:
2 STEP:
2)
IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
V
P&Z
CC
FaB!.IC HEARING
'?
DATE: +\C ~
VESTED RIGHTS: YES____ NO
(
3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE:
~
N/A
INITIALS: ~
P&Z cc
DATE REFERRED: -(j:~{4/-((
Planning Director APpr~val:
Insubstantial Amendment or
Exemption:
Paid:
Date:
Staff Approval:
Consent Agenda:
Paid:
Date:
----------
REFlilRRALS :
~ City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
v City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:ZonjInspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork
Aspen Consolo Transit Energy Center
S.D. Other
--------------------------------------~ -----------
;INAL ;~UTING: ---- DATE ROUTED: ~INITIAL: AY-I-
City Atty V City Engineer V-;;ldg. Dept.
Other: 'LON! nry
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
l
7/~
CASE LOAD SUMMARY SHEET
NITZEjSTUNDA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
TO:
FILE
FROM:
CINDY HOUBEN, PLANNER
RE:
NITZEjSTUNDA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
On August 22, 1988 the City Council approved the NitzejStunda
Lot Line Adjustment with the following conditions of approval:
1)
The applicants shall clarify the encroachment
situation with the Engineering Department (granted
563, Page 326 noted on the plat).
license
in Book
2) All property monuments and encroachment monuments shall be
indicated on the plat.
3) The applicants shall agree to join an improvements district
if one is formed in the area. This agreement shall be
submitted to and reviewed by the city Attorney. The
agreement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the garage structure.
ch.nitze2
~""
" /
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
Cindy Houben, Planning Office 1\--,
THRU:
RE:
NitzejStunda Boundary Line Adjustment
DATE:
August 22, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the request
for a boundary line adjustment (transfer of approximately 500
square feet) between two consenting adjacent property owners.
APPLICANTS: William Nitze and steven Stunda.
REQUEST: Approval of a boundary line adjustment between the Nitze
property and the Stunda property.
LOCATION: 420 W. North Street and
property is Block 101, Lots 14-20.
101, Lots 11-13.
602 North Street. The Nitze
The Stunda property is Block
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The application states that both
land owners acknowledge that a claim in adverse possession had
been established by Mr. Nitze to property owned by Mr. Stunda.
Both parties are co-applicants requesting the boundary line
adjustment. (See attached Map)
HISTORY: In October of 1987, Mr. Nitze requested an exemption
from the moratorium (ReSOlution #27) on building in the R-6 zone
district pursuant to the dimensional requirements of the old
Code. This exemption was granted, thereby allowing the
applicant to continue with a building permit application to
construct an addition to an existing house. This addition also
included a proposed garage. The garage, however, was situated on
the property (see map) which encroached into Mr. Stunda's
property. The garage construction requires a 5' setback from the
side property line. In order to construct the garage Mr. Nitze
is pursuing this boundary line adjustment request. The
application states that Mr. Nitze or this predecessors have used
this land for over 25 years.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1) Engineering Department: In a memo by Chuck Roth, dated
August 15, 1988, (attached) he states the following:
,""'''.
.<"..-....
'""
....."".
a. There is language "encroachment license granted in Book
563 at Page 326" which is not clear on the plat what
the encroachment is.
b. According to section 19-98 of the Municipal Code
(Chapter 19 is titled streets, sidewalks and other
Public Property), sidewalk will be required to be
constructed along the Third Street frontage if a garage
is constructed. The issue of sidewalks in this
neighborhood is one which needs examination by Council,
P&Z, and the Historic Preservation Committee. At this
time, section 19-98 is law. If Council does not desire
sidewalk to be constructed until the sidewalk issue is
evaluated, the property owner could provide bonding per
19-99 and 19-100 instead of performing the
construction. Copies of the pertinent Code sections
are attached.
c. All of the property monuments must be indicated as
found or set. The encroachment limit monuments may not
need to be set, but they should be indicated on the
drawing as not set if that is the case.
d. The applicant must agree to join improvement districts
for improvements ln the public rights-of-way per
language available from the city Attorney.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. This application is made pursuant to the new Code, section
7-1003. However, the applicants are still requesting the
dimensional requirements of the old Code since william Nitze
was exempted from the revised R-6 zone district regulations
(granted on October 26, 1987). The applicants are primarily
concerned with the side-yard setback. The new Code would
require a minimum of 15 feet on the side yard (on the Nitze
parcel), whereas the old Code requires a 5 foot setback. We
believe it is appropriate to apply the prior setback
requirement to this project since it was granted the right
to a building permit under the prior regulations.
2. section 7-1003 states that an exemption may be granted for
the purpose of adjusting a lot line between adjacent parcels
or lots which are under separate ownership if the following
conditions are met:
a. criteria: It is demonstrated that the request is to correct
an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to
permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent
parcels; and
Response: The request is between two consenting land owners
2
,....
,-.....
to correct a plat to reflect a boundary which has been
established over the last 25 years.
b. criteria: Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted
provide written consent to the application; and
Response: Both land owners consent to the Boundary line
adjustment. written consent has been provided.
c. criteria: It is demonstrated that the request is to address
specific hardship; and
Response: The adjustment addresses a specific hardship. The
owners of the Nitze parcel have used, and been under the
impression for the past 25 years that the area in question
is part of their lot.
d. criteria: The corrected plat will meet the standards of this
division, and conform to the requirements of this chapter,
including the dimensional requirements of the Zone District
in which the lots are located, except in cases of an
existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall
not increase the non-conformity of the lot; and
Response: The plat will meet the requirements of the Code if
the conditions set forth by the Engineering Department are
met. The development proposed for the Nitze parcel will
meet the dimensional requirements of the old Code as was
provided for by the exemption approval granted to the Nitze
family in October of 1987 (regarding the implementation of
the new Land Use Code requirements). The parcels will
remain conforming parcels in the zone district.
e. criteria: It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment
will not affect the development rights or permitted density
of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create
a new lot for resale or development.
Response: The applicants are not creating any new parcels
for the purposes of development or resale. The boundary line
adjustment, however, will affect development on the two
parcels. The Nitze parcel will be able to place a garage
structure on the acquired land and still maintain the
required side yard setback. The stunda parcel which is
currently 9,000 square feet in size will be reduced to 8,500
square feet, thereby reducing the options for the parcel
allowed under the Code. (The new Land Use Code allows a 9000
square foot parcel in the R-6 Zone District to have two
detached single-family structures or a duplex).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The City council grants approval of the
NitzejStunda Lot Line Adjustment with the following conditions:
3
~
..."",,
1)
The applicants shall clarify the encroachment
situation with the Engineering Department (granted
563, Pa e 326 noted on the plat).
license
in Book
2)
3) All property monuments and encroachment monuments shall be
indicated on the plat.
4) The applicants shall agree to join an improvements district
if one is formed in the area. This agreement shall be
submitted to and reviewed by the City Attorney. The
agreement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the garage structure.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
CH.NITZE
4
..... ,<'
MEMORANDUM
To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer (?~
Date: August 15, 1988
Re: Nitze/Stunda Lot Line Adjustment
Having reviewed the above reference application, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. There is language "encroachment license granted in Book 563
at Page 326" which is not clear on the plat what the encroachment
is.
2. According to Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code (Chapter 19
is titled Streets, Sidewalks and other Public Property), sidewalk
will be required to be constructed along the Third Street
frontage if a garage is constructed. The issue of sidewalks in
this neighborhood is one which needs examination by Council, P &
Z, and the Historic Preservation Committee. At this time,
Section 19-98 is law. If council does not desire sidewalk to be
constructed until the sidewalk issue is evaluated, the property
owner could provide bonding per 19-99 and 19-100 instead of
performing the construction. Copies of the pertinent code
sections are attached.
3. All of the property monuments must be indicated as found or
set. The encroachment limit monuments may not need to be set,
but they should be indicated on the drawing as not set if that is
the case.
4. The applicant must agree to join improvement districts for
improvements in the public rights-of-way per language available
from the City Attorney.
cc: Jay Hammond
CR/cr/memo_88.69
,,, " '""
See. 19-9Io..-Construction of sidewalk, curb a"""gutter
required for all new construction in
certain district...
The building inspector shall not issue a certificate of
occupancy for any new construction in the CC, Cl, NC, L.l, L.2
and CL zone districts or other area as designat.ed on the adopted
sidewalk, curh and gutter plan unless sidewalk, Clll-b, and gutter
has been constructed in tlH~ right-of-wa.\' adjoining the building
~it('. (Ord. No. ;W-197:>, ~ 1: Onf. No. 2,-1982, ~ 2)
Sec. 19-99. Reservation of funds for construction of
sidewalk, curb and gutter.
If the weather prevents construction of the improvements
required by section 19-98 at the time of completion of the
principal improvements, the building inspector may issue 8
certificate of occupancy after funds have been escrowed for
the construction of same. The amount of the escrow shall be
determined by the city engineer and shall be at least one
hundred (100) per cent of the current cost of construction.
The escrow agreement shall in no way relieve the owner of
the responsibility for construction of the improvements
when it shall become practicable. (Ord. No. 30-1975, 9 1)
"
Sec. 19-100, Procedures when not feasible to con-
struct sidewalk, curb and gutter.
If the city engineer deems that the construction of
improvements required by section 19-98 is inappropriate at
the time of completion of the principal improvements due to
existing conditions or future city plans, the building
inspector may issue a certificate of occupancy after the
owner of the property shall have complied with one of the
foDowing;
(a) The owner shall have escrowed funds as required in
section 19-99. This procedure shall be used only if it
appears feasi ble that the improvements will be
constructed within three (:1) years. In the event that
the improvements are not made within three (:l) years,
the escrowed funds shall he released and the owner
shall enter into an agreement as required in subpar~
a/,.'Taph (b) of this section.
(b) If existing improvements or conditions make con~
struction of sidewalk. curh and gutter within three (3)
years unfeasible, the owner shall have entered into an
aJ,,'Teement with the city whereby he shall ah'1"ee to
construct or pay for the construction of said improve-
ments when the city deems their construction
necessary and feasible. This agreement shall be a
covenant running with the land. (Ord. No. :lO.1975. 9
I)
(.~~_........
~ar_ _ ...._ ..: .~ ,.....IV<'~T;_ ~.....,:~no.._ ,.............- - .
'"'. L N040O<j'O"!o .-................, J
r--- J '...y,. ""',..,., E 13.10' .'
I I ~ I' ~,- -" ~'::;:~'~ "".
~ "".~'"
/7 ~
If '.' /j/ ~
./, .......
I.' R
p; j~!l
llJ.f l fit
1/%, f #.'f
fJ!, ,.. 6(
O} 'I"~', ^ "
('I_ ~~In q.
~~ i{'tfN
z ri U, ~ ~t
....). ~.~ r : I
~z;h.'"
rO'" "*1
~j II . ('
~l J;if ;
~f 'e
..,14 /i
1! J d'
/' i( ~
,: '" :I
f/
.., -
:,A rri
ii~
~~
~"
~~
h
~E
H
V'
-"'n:
...
'"
"
0:
~~~
-~;;-~~~~T~=~'~r--i
8440' - J - I
I
I I
. I
, I
==u
"I
, II
II
il
d
II j'
1/ ~
Ii ~ i
II ~ ~
~I j
~I 1
tl .~
11
! '/
I :1
I
~
(<>"')
T
g
.
"
""
~
e
r
Ji
',--, ,
~
~
l
.
I
I
I
I
I
----J
I
I
I
I
I
----1
I
IJ
/-
___________ J t
, -------- g
II
/I
I ~
I P
---- I,~
----- --j f
I 3
;1,
- ------j)
I 1 .--
-------------------1 f
I .
I I
f J
I I
.;
"
,:
II
I'
J
i
~
Alto"
"",OS'
~"
w!
, -
~~ J
L 1/
j
~!,
d
"
r'; I
i' I
; I
1 I
I
I
-.............-
~
"
.
.
N
,;
- ,
~ ~.
~.
,"
"
u
"
.
~
f
i
.
I
I
i
j
!
!
i
"
.
.
n
,.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
Robert s. Anderson, Jr., city Manager ~~
THRU:
FROM:
cindy Houben, Planning Office
~t'i'
1\ ""
RE:
NitzejStunda Lot Line Adjustment
DATE:
August 8, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Due to problems with our referral process, the Planning Office
has tabled the NitzejStunda Lot Line Adjustment until the August
22, 1988 City council meeting. The applicant has been informed
of this change and does not have a problem with the rescheduling.
o
-
-
GAlRnlElLD & JHllECJHlT, P.C.
RONALD GARFIELD'
ANDREW V. HECHT"''''
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C..........
ROBERT E. KENDIG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON
.alsoadmiltedto
New York Bar
".also admitted to
Districl of Columbia Bar
".alsoadminedto
Nebraska and TelUls Bar
August 3, 1988
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Cindy Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Nitze/Stunda Lot Line Adjustment
Dear Cindy:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, I am
transmitting, under cover of this letter, four (4) additional
copies of the Nitze/Stunda Lot Line Adjustment Plat and one
additional copy of the application requesting approval of such
lot line adjustment. It is my understanding that once you have
been able to review these documents, the City Council will review
this application on August 22, 1988.
For clarification purposes, we would like to state that the
application for a lot line adjustment between consenting adjacent
landowners should be considered submitted under the "new" Aspen
Municipal Land Use Code, effective April 25, 1988, pursuant to
Section 7-1003 of such Code. The dimensional requirements of the
property (most particularly the side yard set-back of five feet)
are, however, the requirements previously established for the R-6
zone district based upon the City Council exemption from the
revised R-6 zone regulations granted October 26, 1987 to our
client William A. Nitze.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
JEH/cc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. William A. Nitze
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
~l~.mil'OO
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION APPLICATION
I. Introduction.
The Applicant, William Nitze, owns the real property located
at 420 West North Street, Aspen, Colorado, legally described as
Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 101, Hallam's Addition,
City and Townsite of Aspen. The Applicant requests this
subdivision exception pursuant to Section 20-19(a) (4) of the
former Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code") in order
to permit a boundary change between two consenting adjacent
landowners. Steven R. Stunda, who has signed this Application as
the consenting adjacent landowner, owns the property legally
described as Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block 101, Hallam's Addition,
City and Townsite of Aspen, directly west of Applicant's
property. Applicant is requesting this lot line adjustment for
two reasons. The first reason is that Applicant or his
predecessors in interest have used the appoximately 500 square
feet which is the subject of this application exclusively for
over twenty-five (25) years and Applicant wishes to memorialize
his claim in adverse possession to such property. Secondly,
Applicant wishes to construct a one-car garage on the southwest
corner of his home, and to do so, he must be able to provide a
five foot (5') side yard set back. On October 26, 1987, the
Aspen City Council voted to exempt the construction of the
garage, as well as other improvements to Applicant's property,
from the R-6 zone requirements set forth in the revised Code. A
copy of the City Council minutes from such meeting is attached as
Exhibit "A" hereto.
II. Subdivision Exception.
The Code provides, in Section 20-19, that certain exceptions
from the strict application of the provisions of the chapter on
subdivision may be obtained under certain conditions. Section
20-19(a) (4) states that the planning commission may grant
exceptions where undue hardship may result from strict
compliance with the subdivision regulations. The section states
that an exception may be granted for the purpose of adjusting a
lot line between adjacent parcels or lots which may be under
individually separate ownership if the following conditions are
met:
a. The applicant demonstrates that the purpose of the
request is to permit a boundary change between consenting
adjacent landowners;
b. The adjustment will not directly or indirectly
affect the development rights or permitted density on the
property by providing the opportunity to create a new lot or
parcel for development or resale purposes;
c. Subsequent to the adjustment, the parcels or lots
will continue to conform to the underlying area and bulk
requirements of the zone district; and
d. The applicant otherwise complies with all
applicable zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of
Aspen.
A. Request for a Boundary Change Between Consenting Adjacent
Landowners.
As indicated on the subdivision exception plat attached
hereto as Exhibit "B", the common property line between
Applicant's property and Stunda's property is immediately
adjacent to two concrete block walls. Applicant has been able to
establish that he has a claim of adverse possession to that part of
Stunda's property east of the wall. After being presented with
evidence of such claim of adverse possession, Stunda agreed to
join in this application as a consenting adjacent landowner to
adjust the property lines between his and Applicant's property in
order to reflect the change in ownership of the property caused
by the claim of adverse possession. Both the existing property
line and the proposed new property line are shown on the plat
attached as Exhibit "B" hereto.
B. No Affect on Development Rights or Permitted Density.
The adjustment will not directly or indirectly affect the
development rights or permitted density of either Applicant's
property or Stunda's property by providing the opportunity to
create a new lot or parcel for development or resale purposes.
Applicant's property consists of approximately 18,627 square
feet. Stunda's property consists of approximately 9,000 square
feet. The property which will transfer from Stunda's ownership
to Applicant's by reason of this boundary adjustment application
is comprised of approximately 500 square feet. Although
Applicant has no present intention to do so, prior to the
transfer of property, Applicant could subdivide his property into
three (3) lots, each of which would conform to the minimum lot
area requirements of the R-6 zone district. The transfer of
property will not give Applicant any additional development
rights.
Pursuant to an exemption from the new R-6 zoning
requirements granted Applicant, Applicant is currently seeking a
building permit to add an additional 1,613 square feet onto his
3,454 square foot duplex. A copy of the City Council minutes
excepting such addition from the new R-6 zoning regulations is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". As the Applicant's duplex will
exceed the allowable square footage under the new R-6 zoning
regulations with the transfer of property included, the transfer
will not permit Applicant to add any additional square footage
onto his duplex.
-2-
,.,'0
".J
C. Conformance With Underlying Zone District.
Subsequent to the adjustment, both Applicant's property and
Stunda's property will continue to conform to the underlying area
and bulk requirements of the zone district. The properties will
each continue to exceed 6,000 square feet, the minimum lot size
in the R-6 zone district in which the properties are located, and
the boundary adjustment will not create any setback
non-conformities, as demonstrated by the plat attached as Exhibit
"BII.
D. Compliance with Applicable Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations.
This boundary change application is not subject to the
Growth Management Quota System for this application is not
seeking approval for any type of development activity. The
Applicant has complied with the plat requirements of the
subdivision regulations, and such plat is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B". There are no other applicable zoning or subdivision
regulations with which Applicant must apply.
III. Conclusion.
If this application is granted, Applicant will construct a
garage as depicted on the improvement survey attached hereto as
Exhibit "B". The garage will have a sideyard setback of five (5)
feet, which was the setback required under the R-6 zoning
regulations prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 54, Series of
1987 amending the R-6 zoning regulations. As demonstrated above,
this application complies with all other applicable zoning and
subdivision regulations of the Code. Therefore, the Applicant
respectfully requests the approval of this boundary line
adjustment application.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Ellen Hamilton, Attorney for
William A. Nitze
-3-
~
The undersigned, William A. Nitze, owner of that certain
real property legally described as Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
and 20, Block 101, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen
respectfully submits and consents to the attached lot line
adjustment application.
William A. Nitze
-4-
;-.
....~,
The undersigned Steven R. Stunda, owner of that certain real
property legally described as Lots II, 12 and 13, Block 101,
Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen respectfully
submits and consents to the attached lot line adjustment
application.
Steven R. Stunda
-5-
...,
........
-
-...
JUl. 7 1988
GAlRfRIElD & HIECHT, P.C.
RONALD GARFIELD.
ANDREW V. HECHT".
WILLIAM K. GUEST. P.C....
ROBERT E. KENDIG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN A VENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
JANE ELLEN HAMiLTON
.a1so admitted to
New Yorlr. 8ar
"abo admitted to
District or Columbia Bar
-also admitted to
NebIllllkaandTexasBar
July 7, 1988
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Alan RiChman, Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
City Hall
130 South Galena, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Lot Line Adiustment
Dear Alan:
Several months ago we had a pre-application conference with
Steve Burstein regarding a proposed lot line adjustment
reflecting the transfer of approximately 500 square feet between
two properties located in the West End. As we explained to
Steve, the lot line adjustment is being pursued between two
consenting adjacent landowners because they each acknowledged
that a claim il1_~dY~.J::se.Eossesi?iQn had been established by one
lot owner to certain property legally owned by the other lot
owner. Rather than pursue a quiet title suit, which would
involve a great deal of expense and a great deal of time, the
landowners have chosen to pursue this method of adjusting their
property boundaries. As you will note from the enclosed
application, the City Council has exempted certain improvements
proposed by my client, William A. Nitze, to his home from the
provisions of the revised R-6 zoning regulations. This lot line
adjustment is essential to the construction of one portion of
these improvements, the garage. Pursuant to the City council
action, we are permitted to proceed with the side yard set backs
required under the former Municipal Code of the city of Aspen
rather than the revised Code, and therefore, the applicable side
yard set back would be 5 feet. Following the lot line
adjustment, the side yard set back from the edge of the proposed
garage to Mr. Nitze's property line will be at least 5 feet, as
indicated on the enclosed plat.
--
\.....-
-
......
GARfIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
July 7, 1988
Page -2-
In conjunction with this application, we have enclosed the
following:
1. An application form;
2. A discussion of why the application complies with
the substantive development review standards relevant
to a subdivision exemption application;
3. A disclosure of ownership of both parcels
represented by copies of each owner's title policy;
4. A check in the amount of $780.00, which includes
an engineering referral fee; and
5. Two copies of the lot line adjustment plat.
We will be forwarding to you 6 additional copies of the lot
line adjustment plat as well as an 8 1/2 x 11 inch vicinity map
locating the affected property. As there is no public hearing
requirement for the lot line adjustment, it is not necessary to
provide you with any adjacent landowners names or addresses.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
p~
~len Hamilton
JEH/emm
Enclosure
cc: William A. Nitze
:/
ATI2ICHIDlT 1
lAND USE APPLICATICW "f1::eot
1)
2)
Project Name
Project IDeation
Nitze/Sbmda rot Line Ad-;\lstn1ent
420 West North St., Aspen, LOts 14-20 and LOts 11-13.
Block 10!. Hallam's Addition. City and 'T'ownsite of ARpF'n
(indicate ..L..=t adtress, lot & block J1Imk>~, legal description ~
awrq>riate)
3)
Pi. s:nt Zcning
R-6
4) IDt: size (See Abovel
5) AWlicant's Name, 1\dlress & ItIale I William A. Nitze, 420 W. North St., Aspen
and Steven R. . Stunda,
Baltimore, MD 21210
Representative's Name,
Gadene & Stunda, I Villaqe Square, Suite Ill.
6)
1\dlress & Ib:ne f
Jane Ellen Hamilton, Garfield &
Hecht, P.C., 601 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-1936
7) Type of AWlication (please dJeck all that awlY):
Ccntitional Use
_ 0:IDepbJal SPA
Final SPA
_ 0:IDepbJal Historic DeIr.
Final Historic DeII'.
_ ~;",l Review
8040 Greenline
0:IDepbJal roo
Minlr Historic DeII'.
,>
_ stream Margin
Final roo
Historic Tl<>mn] ;tion
Ibmtain view Plane
..
subdivision
_ Historic Designation
QQ3 Allotment
-. QQ3 ExaIpticn
O:nJcminilllDization _ 'l'ext/KlP Ames..Jba..tl.
One (ll sinqle fa'llily heme on Stunda's property, one ell duplex on Nitze's
property.
9) Description of Devel.'-'l-"""'tt AR;ilication
lDt line adillstrnf:'!nt r..o reflp~t: ovpr ?S VPnrR nRnqP hy Nir.'7.p nnn hiR
predecessors in interest of approximately 500 square feet.
10) Have yaI attadled the followinj?
--1L- ~ TCIlSe to At:t:admIent 2, Mini.uua l':I......;=i.cn O:lntent:s
--1L- ~ TCIlSe to Att...JIUK2tl. 3, ~H'ic l':I......;=;<W1 O:lntent:s
--1L- ~ TCIlSe to At;t.aJ1UK2tl. 4, Review standaJ:ds far Yoor 1\fI>li.....tion
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION APPLICATION
I. Introduction.
The Applicant, William Nitze, owns the real property located
at 420 West North Street, Aspen, Colorado, legally described as
Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 101, Hallam's Addition,
City and Townsite of Aspen. The Applicant requests this
subdivision exception pursuant to Section 20-19(a) (4) of the
former Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code") in order
to permit a boundary change between two consenting adjacent
landowners. Steven R. Stunda, who has signed this Application as
the consenting adjacent landowner, owns the property legally
described as Lots II, 12 and 13, Block 101, Hallam's Addition,
City and Townsite of Aspen, directly west of Applicant's
property. Applicant is requesting this lot line adjustment for
two reasons. The first reason is that Applicant or his
predecessors in interest have used the appoximately 500 square
feet which is the subject of this application exclusively for
over twenty-five (25) years and Applicant wishes to memorialize
his claim in adverse possession to such property. Secondly,
Applicant wishes to construct a one-car garage on the southwest
corner of his home, and to do so, he must be able to provide a
five foot (5') side yard set back. On October 26, 1987, the
Aspen City Council voted to exempt the construction of the
garage, as well as other improvements to Applicant's property,
from the R-6 zone requirements set forth in the revised Code. A
copy of the City Council minutes from such meeting is attached as
Exhibit "A" hereto.
II. Subdivision Exception.
The Code provides, in Section 20-19, that certain exceptions
from the strict application of the provisions of the chapter on
subdivision may be obtained under certain conditions. Section
20-19(a) (4) states that the planning commission may grant
exceptions where undue hardship may result from strict
compliance with the subdivision regulations. The section states
that an exception may be granted for the purpose of adjusting a
lot line between adjacent parcels or lots which may be under
individually separate ownership if the following conditions are
met:
a. The applicant demonstrates that the purpose of the
request is to permit a boundary change between consenting
adjacent landowners;
b. The adjustment will not directly or indirectly
affect the development rights or permitted density on the
property by providing the opportunity to create a new lot or
parcel for development or resale purposes;
c. Subsequent to the adjustment, the parcels or lots
will continue to conform to the underlying area and bulk
requirements of the zone district; and
d. The applicant otherwise complies with all
applicable zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of
Aspen.
A. Request for a Boundary Change Between Consenting Adiacent
Landowners.
As indicated on the subdivision exception plat attached
hereto as Exhibit "B", the common property line between
Applicant's property and Stunda's property is immediately
adjacent to two concrete block walls. Applicant has been able to
establish that he has a claim of adverse possession to that part of
Stunda's property east of the wall. After being presented with
evidence of such claim of adverse possession, Stunda agreed to
join in this application as a consenting adjacent landowner to
adjust the property lines between his and Applicant's property in
order to reflect the change in ownership of the property caused
by the claim of adverse possession. Both the existing property
line and the proposed new property line are shown on the plat
attached as Exhibit "B" hereto.
B. No Affect on Development Rights or Permitted Density.
The adjustment will not directly or indirectly affect the
development rights or permitted density of either Applicant's
property or Stunda's property by providing the opportunity to
create a new lot or parcel for development or resale purposes.
Applicant's property consists of approximately 18,627 square
feet. Stunda's property consists of approximately 9,000 square
feet. The property which will transfer from Stunda's ownership
to Applicant's by reason of this boundary adjustment application
is comprised of approximately 500 square feet. Although
Applicant has no present intention to do so, prior to the
transfer of property, Applicant could subdivide his property into
three (3) lots, each of which would conform to the minimum lot
area requirements of the R-6 zone district. The transfer of
property will not give Applicant any additional development
rights.
Pursuant to an exemption from the new R-6 zoning
requirements granted Applicant, Applicant is currently seeking a
building permit to add an additional 1,613 square feet onto his
3,454 square foot duplex. A copy of the City Council minutes
excepting such addition from the new R-6 zoning regulations is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". As the Applicant's duplex will
exceed the allowable square footage under the new R-6 zoning
regulations with the transfer of property included, the transfer
will not permit Applicant to add any additional square footage
onto his duplex.
-2-
C. Conformance With Underlying Zone District.
Subsequent to the adjustment, both Applicant's property and
Stunda's property will continue to conform to the underlying area
and bulk requirements of the zone district. The properties will
each continue to exceed 6,000 square feet, the minimum lot size
in the R-6 zone district in which the properties are located, and
the boundary adjustment will not create any setback
non-conformities, as demonstrated by the plat attached as Exhibit
"B".
D. Compliance With Applicable Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations.
This boundary change application is not subject to the
Growth Management Quota System for this application is not
seeking approval for any type of development activity. The
Applicant has complied with the plat requirements of the
subdivision regulations, and such plat is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B". There are no other applicable zoning or subdivision
regulations with which Applicant must apply.
III. Conclusion.
If this application is granted, Applicant will construct a
garage as depicted on the improvement survey attached hereto as
Exhibit "B". The garage will have a sideyard setback of five (5)
feet, which was the setback required under the R-6 zoning
regulations prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 54, Series of
1987 amending the R-6 zoning regulations. As demonstrated above,
this application complies with all other applicable zoning and
subdivision regulations of the Code. Therefore, the Applicant
respectfully requests the approval of this boundary line
adjustment application.
Respectfully submitted,
Hamilton, Attorney for
Nitze
-3-
(I
(
l
(
,~
\
"
Exhibit "A"
Soeci'ai MeeLlu"
,- A;;pen-Cit:y~-eourrcrl'--' - "--QctobErrl'9. 1987
Drueding said 309 North Street is the addition of a new spa.
Councilman Tuite moved to exempt 309 North Street; seconded by
Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Tuite moved to exempt 517 North street; seconded by
Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Stirling moved to exempt 308 West Hopkins for an interior
remodel; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion
carried.
Drueding said 701 West Francis is a small addition, which will
bring the building up to the maximum FAR of both new allowable
and proposed. Councilman Tuite moved to exempt 701 West Francis;
seconded by Councilman Isaac. Bob Ritchie told Council he has
letters of support from his neighbors for this remodel. All in
favor, motion carried.
Drueding told Council 320 West Bleeker is a request to enclose an
existing carport, which are exempt from FARs. The applicant has
received a variance. Councilman Isaac moved to exempt 320 West
Bleeker; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion
carried.
Drueding said 420 North street is an 18,627 square foot lot with
3454 square feet on the lot. The applicants want to add 1500
square feet. They will be over the proposed FAR. Drueding told
Council there have not been any permits issued on this. Bruce
Sutherland pointed out the lot coverage with the addition is only
13.67 percent The bulk of the expansion is all at the rear of the
lot and the impact will be negligible.
Councilman Isaac moved to exempt 420 North street; seconded by
Councilman Tuite. Councilmempers Isaac and Tuite in favor;
Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling opposed. Motion NOT
carried. _'___u,_,
Drueding said 717, 721 West Francis is currently 3 small houses
that have been condominiumized. The applicants will reduce the
non-conformity and convert this to a duplex. The FAR for a
duplex is 4500, which they have appl ied for. Thi s woul d not
qual ify under the new, proposed FAR. Drueding said the permit
application was received last week. Ted Guy, architect, said the
addition is predominantly a one-story link between the existing
house at the alley and on the east. Guy said he has tried to do
a lot with the architecture to reduce the bulk and the massive
street profile. Guy said the schematic design drawings were
approved in September.
6
.
(
(,
L
,
(-
\
Reqular- M",eLi""
--Aspeni::ity--i::ounc il-
Dctuber 26 .1987
198 S- BUDGET
Cindy Shafer, finance director, recommended Council open the
public hearing, take comments, and continue this to November 9,
1987. Ms. Shafer said the final adoption of the budget ~Iill
depend on whether Council has a special election in December on
the serial street levy.
Mayor Pro Tem Fallin opened the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Fallin continued the public hearing on the 1988
budget until VII (n) after the discussion of the election
question; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion
carried.
LOT-sPL~ - Marshall
Councilman Isaac moved to table this until November 9, 1987, at
the request of the applicant; seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Fallin.
All in favor, motion carried.
RESOL~TIDN #27. 1987 - Exemption from Moratorium
(Mayor Pro Tem Fallin left the room due to conflict of interest).
Councilman Isaac said these are requests for exemption from the
administrative delay. City Attorney Taddune said this resolution
gives Council the opportunity to lift the moratorium for certain
applications; this resolution relate to exhibit 1, not A.
Taddune pointed out a list of the projects already exempted have
been appended to the resolution.
........ Nitze~ P L U i ect Andy Hecht, representing the Ni tze' s, presented
/ photographs and told Council the Nitzes own over 19,000 square
feet in the west end. Hecht said this is a very unique site
because of the magnitude of the open space. This property is
located between Third and Fourth on North. Hecht told Council
this property received a variance from the Board of Adjustment
because it was the Board's opinion the roof could be a different
shape, have a greater impact and be higher under the Code than it
would be if they granted this variance. The Nitzes requested a
variance from the setback in the rear of the lot, and that was
denied.
Bruce Sutherland, architect, told Council the residence has 3454
square feet and the Nitzes would like to add 1613 square feet.
Hecht pointed out there is a potential of a lot spl it with each
lot containing a duplex. It could be two single family lots and
each single family dwelling would be 3690 square feet, a total of
7380. Hecht told Council the Nitzes do not want to split the
6
.
,
(
(
l
,
(
\
( ,
,
Requi-a-r-ioIeetinq ---------Aspen-eity i::ounc-il-
- -October 26 . 1987
lot; however, they will in order to get the square footage they
need. The Nitzes are proposing a garage which will further
exacerbate the setback under the new Code provision but would be
permitted under the old Code. The Nitzes want to add square
footage in the rear and the rest of the lot remains open. The
Nitzes are willing to say as long as the house stays on the lot,
they will not seek a lot split or further development. Hecht
showed how little the house will show from the street and from
the rear of the lot.
Hecht told Council the new Code provisions allows 20 percent site
coverage; the Nitzes will have 13.67 with the addition. There is
more floor area than allowed and the building does not quite meet
the setbacks. Hecht said the setback on one side is 5 feet and
the neighbor is aware a garage will be built there. In the back,
the setback will be 15 feet.
Councilman Tuite moved to exempt the Nitze project as plans
currently exist in the building department; seconded by Council-
man Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
Gassman. Motion carried.
Councilman Tuite said the FAR of this project was below the FAR
in the present code. Councilman Tuite said it is not his
intention to harm anyone, and he does not feel this project is
one of the ones the west end is having problems with. Hecht said
they have been working on this for 2 years and did not try to
rush the plans into the building department.
Turrev-Pro+ect Andy Hecht, representing Turley, told Council his
client has been working on these plans since April but got them
to the building department the day after the moratorium was
invoked. Hecht told Council Turley was the subject of a lot
split granted by Council, which was reviewed for setbacks and
preservation of trees. Hecht told Council this is located at the
cor per of Roaring Fork road and Gillespie. Hecht said a require-
ment of the plans was to hav~ a large yard, to preserve the
trees, which was a requirement of the lot split approval, the lot
split approval also stated there would have to be a minimum of 25
feet from Gillespie along Roaring Fork road before any improve-
ments started. The lot split approval also said access had to be
on Roaring Fork Road. Turley's instructions to the architect
were the structure to be consistent with the historical charac-
ter, the garage was not to be on Gillespie, a limited structure.
Hecht told Council the FAR would be in compliance if Turley takes
the porch off. Hecht said he does not feel the porch should be
counted, but the building department does. The porch is an
important architectural detail.
7
.
The undersigned, William A. Nitze, owner of that certain
real property legally described as Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
and 20, Block 101, Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen
respectfully submits and consents to the attached lot line
adjustment application.
~'" /.l~
william A. Nitze
-4-
The undersigned Steven R. Stunda,
property legally described as Lots II,
Hallam's Addition, City and Townsite 0
submits and consents to the attached
application.
owner of that certain
12 and 13, Block 01,
Aspen respectf ly
t line adjustm t
real
-5-
I' >
.. "
......,
........
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 7/-' / !?'i? _ P L ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: ..(() .33,,1 - 8"
~ STAFF MEMBER: CI",- ,.....
:~~:~~ ~=1i!IfJ1flJf1 ~.~
APPLICANT:
::~:::A:::~;;;J~~ '"lip q. 11 ~.
Representative~ress/Phone: r~~ fiUAr_J{ 'JJ4(, ? 0 0
;~~~7==~==;~===;;~~7===~37~ff~~===============~:L~~~==
1)
TYPE OF
1 STEP:
APPLICATION:
V
2 STEP:
2)
IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
V
P&Z
CC
PUBI.-IC HEARING
'?
DATE: A.c ~
VESTED RIGHTS: YES____ NO
3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE:
P&Z
cc
1-1'-/ /[(
~
N/A
INITIALS: '1tt~/
~
DATE REFERRED:
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
Paid:
Date:
Staff Approval:
Consent Agenda:
Paid:
Date:
REF}i}RRALS :
V. city Attorney
v City Engine.er
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
city Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consolo
S.D.
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
Roaring Fork
Transit
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Bldg:Zon/Inspect
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
Other
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
City Atty
City Engineer
Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
I"'"' -""\.
AS~N/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE ~
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, 00 81611.
(303) 9~~~~~~f~VV
Date: ~(~
Dear
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
p.:eliminary review of Jil':.cc captioned application. We have determined
that your application ~ NOT complete.
Additional items required include:
~
~.
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
A check in the amount of $
Your applicationf) is complete and h 'uled it for
review by the 'k(l / We will
call you if we need any additional on pdor to that
date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a
sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee.
B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. When we receive the materials we have
requested, we will place you o~e next available agenda.
If you have any questions, pI ease call \ L::e. .-M &f
the planner assigned to your case. -~
Sincerely,
AfPKN/PITKIN PLANN~NG OFFICE
· r/t:;( {lut ~