Loading...
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 ~