HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Doremus.1984
",',. -..-'
1""""\
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
G'\f\\ p..,.......~~
PROJECT NAME: Vo!<.r;/nos i;:~:;' ~
APPLICANT: .'/OrJ/1'1 1!2'7..f,A'i/lL&C
REPRESENTATIVE: (j.. b ,rI1A~//I~
i/
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1.
Conceptual Submission
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
2.
3.
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1.
2.
3.
Conceptual Submission.
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
III.
EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step)
1
IV.
SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step)
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
L
3.
4.
Conditional Use
Other: ~ r~,,-\A,~...::l.
.1""""\
CASE NO.
iO-;]11
Co\<t.~e..
STAFF:
Phone:
Phone: 9<2:J - /9:z3
(FEE)
($2,730.00)
($1,640.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,900.00)
($1,220.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,490.00)
($ 680.00) ~
P&Z MEETING DATE:
CC MEETING DATE: t<\"...J....t..
REFERRALS :
~'City Attorney ~spen Consolo S.D.
____City Engineer Mountain Bell
____Housing Director ____Parks Dept.
____Aspen Water Dept. ____Holy Cross Electric
____City Electric Fire Marshall
Environmental Hlth. Fire Chief
School District
____Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas
____State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
____State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
____Building Dept.
____Other:
FINAL ROUTING:
~ty Attorney
~
Engineer
____Other:
____0ther:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
DATE ROUTED: .
~lding De~t.
,
'.\.
t..
.d~
~..~
-~,..
,-."
1""""\
DISPOSITION:
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
.
I - s(;;' t~
'T:' ( /l,_,.,eV\ c:.,' I
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
! ' '
7 ,.;>;:;
Q'>!6 I
..J ; V ; ~S ; C. ,/"\
f'
~ ,,--.
\,'1 V',--.,.., " ""l;.....,/,
,: "", '-" V " I, t..
.el,
, ,.)
, I i
"~..;."A ,n)
. II,'
, \ J, J, f'"U r) '.':~ (!
. n.l'\/"':'l
('
"
G .,:,:,:~ I , i:
t',l1ci)-1-. \) ,:j(~ --lli(k n,
.;d~ ..,\ ~",.. \ ,"-.", \ I,
{.41'c4' Lcd 0
l
'.;").1/:)(/((..(
~n,"<o
.",
Lo-! 1<
1 ~ "
,..{)
"
'") ~,".~
, (',
I,,''.,
(
'. ",
( ("
(,"..eNO ~.'\- \ \ '
'{I-I,,,, \ ." ("",\')",1",
.0:. X"~ ' y _/~,.,' _..:.. ' I. T I.
~.::;'::...\ ; J
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
'I'
i'/
,
\"
i ,
\ I '\
Ordinance No. \_j
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW,
,
.v
01';.
~""
Ordinance NO.
,.-....
~
~lE MORANDUl>!
TO:
Aspen City Council
FRml:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
Doremus Plat Amendment
DATE:
April 2, 1984
APPROITED AS TO FORM:
----------~-------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION:
Lots P and Q, Block 43, City and Townsite of Aspen
(Bleeker Street, between 2nd and 3rd Streets)
ZONING:.
R-6
APPLICANT'S REOUEST:
Subdivision exception approval to record a plat which conveys a seven
inch (7") wide strip to Lots Rand s.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The City Attorney's Office recommends expeditious approval.
The City Engineering Department's memo outlines a number of technical
corrections that need to be made on the subdivision plat prior to
recordation (memo attached).
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW:
Lots Rand S (adjacent to Lots P and Q) are built upon, including
a shed which encroaches seven inches (7") onto Lot Q for a distance
of about forty-one feet (41'). The shed has existed for approximately
fifteen (15) years.
The improvement survey and map relied upon by Mr. Doremus and his
partners in purchasing Lots N, 0, P and Q, in ~larch of 1982, showed
a retaining wall but no encroachment from Lot R. The error in the
survey was not corrected when a lot split plat was approved in October
of 1982. In December of 1982, Doremus acquired full title to Lots
P and Q, conveying full interest in Lots Nand 0 to his former partners.
Doremus requested and was granted a setback variance from the Board
of Adjustment on February 9, 1984, based on the hardship the survey
error created. The Board of Adjustment felt that the plat correction
was outside their jurisdiction and recommended that the subdivision
exception process be utilized. The City Attorney's Office agreed.
Doremus is conveying an easement to the owner of Lots Rand S for
the seven inch (7") strip. Since this conveyance is in the form
of an easement, the'area is not deleted from the lot area of Lots
P and Q (6,000 s.f.) and the parcel remains conforming in the R-6
zone.
It is the opinion of the City Attorney that this procedure of subdivision
exception must be followed to correct the error and to record a sub-
division plat.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMEND~TION AND COUNCIL ACTION
The Planning Office recommends the following action:
"1 move to approve subdivision exception for the purpose of
correcting a survey error and recording a subdivision plat with
the conveyance of an easement seven inches (7") by forty-one
feet (41') from Lot Q to Lot R with ~hecondition:
1. The survey requirements outlined in the Engineering
Department memo date~ March 13, 1984, be completed
prior to recordation."
1""""\
~\
1~',
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Chuck Roth, Ci ty Engi neeri ng Department C!t::..
~'
"
DATE: March 13, 1984
RE: Doremus Plat Amendment
-----------------------------------------------------------~~-----
Having reviewed the above application and having made a site
inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The descriptions of the encroachments are incomplete. There
is a wood fence on top of the concrete retai nl ng wall. The
wood fence does not extend the entire di.tance of the concrete
retai ni ng wall. The concrete wall is not compl etel y descri bed
di mensi on;lll y. Provi de di mensi on to south property boundary
and locate wood fence also with second dimension. Also, there
is another wood fence encroaching from lot R which butts into
the retaining wall at the southerly end. Please show this on
the pI at.
2. There is also a wooden fence along the north boundary of
the applicant's parcel which must be shown.
3. The northeast corner of the parcel must be monumented
a witness corner. A letter from the surveyor stating that
will be done during the upcoming construction season will
to be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to
department's signing of the plat.
with
thi s
need
this
4. Include a vicinity map on the final plat.
5. Indicate the adjacent lot R and that
Indicate that adjacent Lots Nand 0 are a
Indexed at the County Clerk's Office
43, lots N-~,,,,,,,I ndi cate .t~at the ~ll ey is
Aspen Townsl te.~ S...l:diI/15LO.. E:><e.eptlon,
it Is unplatted, and
parcel and pI atted,
as Aspen City of, Block
of Block 43, Original
6. In the City Certificate, please change the langu~ge to:
" . approved . . . the _____ day of _________, 1984,. Si gned
thi s ________ day of _______, 1984."
7. There are a goodly number of mature trees and shrubs on
the property along the easterly and northerly boundaries. Please
indicate these on the final plat. Section 13-76 of the code
requi res a permi t for the removal of any tree wi th di ameter
larger than 6" measured 4 1/2 feet above grade.
/~
~
1""""\
Page 2
March 13, 1984
Doremus Plat Amendment
8. Provide a Title Statement Certificate. Language is available
from ,the Engi neeri ng Department.
\'
I;
9. In at least one instance. a title company has required a
Mortgagee's Statement on a final plat. The applicant may want
this on his plat.
10. In order to be consi stent wi th the ori gi nal pI at recorded
at the County Clerk's O~rice, please clearly indicate that the
title of this plat is: First Amendme.nt to the City of Aspen,
Bloc.k 43. Lots N-O, Subdivision Exception. Also. beneath the
tit Ie, i ncl ude the foIl owl ng 01" sl mi I ar language.
This plat depicts only changes to the original
pI at. Reference is hereby made to the ori gi nal
final plat for all information not shown on this
amended pI at.
II. In regards to the applicant's request
'unused' portion of the $680 filing
Engineering Department for three hours at
fee.
for a rebate on the
fee, please account the
$35 pel" hour of that
CR/co
cc: Jay Hammond. Assl stant Ci ty Engi neer
.",.....,
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ci ty Attorney
City Engineer
FROM:
Janet Weinstein, Planning Office
RE:
Doremus Plat Amendment
DATE:
March 7, 1984
Attached for your review is an application submitted by J.D. Muller
on behalf of John Doremus requesting subdivision exception to amend
a recorded plat. The amendment to the plat would record an encroachment
easement between Lots P and Q, Block 43, City and Townsite of Aspen.
Due to the simplicity of this application, the Planning Office has
agreed to expedite its review of this case, and therefore we have
scheduled it before City Council on March 26, 1984. Please
review this material and return your comments to Colette Penne no
later than March 14, 1984.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
~
-.
J,D. MULLER
A1TORNEY AT LAW
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL S1REET
WIIUNG ADDRESS: P,O, BOX 4361
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
TELEPHONE: 303/925-1923
IO-~'--\
6 March 1984
city council of the city of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
Application for Exception from full Subdivision Procedure
To the Council:
I represent John Doremus who is the owner of Lots P & Q,
Block 43, City and Townsite of Aspen, according to the
Subdivision Exception [Lot Split] Plat for Lots N & 0 - P & Q,
recorded December 16, 1982, in Plat Book 14 at Page 23. Adjacent
Lots R & S are owned by C.M. Clark, whom I do not represent or
speak for in any way. Lots P & Q are vacant except for a
concrete retaining wall on Lot Q running next to the Q-R lot
boundary line. Lots R & S have improvements, one of which, a
shed, encroaches a strip approximately 7 inches onto Lot Q for
about 41 feet. The shed roof is built against the retaining wall
surface. The shed has been in place at least fifteen years. The
draft exception plat submitted with this application shows the
area of the encroachment.
Doremus and the present owners of Lots Nand 0 purchased as
tenants in common, Lots N,O,P and Q on March 5, 1982 in reliance
on an improvement survey and map prepared in February 1982, which
map showed their seller's retaining wall, but showed no
encroachment from Lot R at all. This same survey error was
carried forward onto the lot split plat which was approved by
City Council on October 10, 1982. In December 1982, Doremus
acquired full title to Lots P & Q, and conveyed all his interest
in Lots N & 0 to the present owners, his former cotenants.
Because of deep snow, the area of the encroachment was not
staked when the improvement survey was originally made. When the
boundary was later staked, the encroachment showed up. Clark
claimed the strip by adverse possession and Doremus's predecessor
in title claimed that the adverse possession period had not run,
and that Doremus had good title. The City Attorney's Office took
the position that any conveyance by Doremus to Clark of fee
title, easement or even license to the 7-inch strip would
constitute a subdivision, requiring a second lot split. In
addition, the Building Department found that under the Building
~
~
Aspen City Council
Page 2
6 March 1984
Code the encroachment made vacant Lot Q "occupied" with a
building such that additional fire wall protection would be
required for any "additional" buildings built to the 5-foot
setback. Also, the encroachment determined the point from which
the setback would be calculated, such that an additional 7 inches
of setback would be required for the length of the shed.
In an effort to solve the matter without having to litigate
title to a 7-inch strip, Doremus requested a setback variance
from the Board of Adjustment, and a determination that the strip
was too small to be considered a subdivision, should it be
conveyed to Clark in settlement of their dispute. (Previously
Doremus had found a solution to the Building Code problem in the
form of a fire protection parapet to be constucted atop the
existing retaining wall.) On February 9, 1984, the Board of
Adjustment granted the variance (based on the hardship the
surveyor's error created), but refused to take jurisdiction of
the subdivision question, stating that the subdivision exception
process was the remedy provided in the Municipal Code.
Doremus would like to give Clark an easement covering the
7-inch strip shown on the enclosed draft exception plat. For the
purpose of conveying that easement, and so "SUbdividing" Lots P &
Q, Doremus requests an exception from all requirements and
procedures of Chapter XX of the Municipal Code except the
preparation of an exception plat and approval of it by City
Council. He also requests a rebate of that portion of his $680.00
filing fee not actually expended in processing this application.
VERIFICATION
I have read the above application and the facts it states
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
~ f//~A/j2
710 Doremus
state of Colorado
County of Pitkin
,/~ The fOreg~ was subscribed and sworn to before
.J;!:!.,,:: day of fA~ , 1984, by John Doremus.
me this
r'\
~\
Aspen City council
Page 3
6 March 1984
Witness my hand and offi5fa~ seal.
My commission expires, '5(I<f/,rr;,
My address is:~
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
60: [, HYMAN
"ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(3031925-3571
71(1f4^ ~ ~---
Not Pub ic
,,-..
-
STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF A "LOT SPLIT" AND FOR MAKING CHANGES TO A
RECORDED PLAT, ALL PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-19 OF THE
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the applicant, John Doremus, who is the record
owner of
Lots P & Q, Block 43, City and Townsite of Aspen,
according to the Subdivision Exception Plat of Lots N &
o - P & Q, recorded December 16, 1982, in Plat Book 14
at Page 23, of the records of the Clerk & Recorder of
pitkin County, Colorado
has applied for an exception from the full subdivision process
for the purpose of a "lot split" to enable him to convey an
easement for an encroachment to the owner of adjacent Lots R & s,
covering a strip of land on Lot Q along the Q-R lot boundary
approximately 7 inches wide by 41 feet long; and,
WHEREAS, through a survey error, the above encroachment was
not shown on the Subdivision Exception Plat mentioned above, and
Doremus wishes to amend the said plat to show the encroachment
strip which is the subject of the "lot split" mentioned in the
preceding paragraph; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council found that the said "lot
split" and amendment are so minor in kind and extent that all
standards and requirements of Chapter XX of the Municipal Code
except the preparation of an exception plat and review by City
Council, would be redundant, serve no pUblic purpose and be
unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City of
Aspen under the facts and circumstances presented in the
application for this exception, and found that, notwithstanding
the exception, the proposed subdivision would substantially
comply with the design standards of Chapter XX; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of
1984, based on the above findings, determined that the
applicant's request for such exception was appropriate and
granted said request,
THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does, by
this resolution, determine that the applicant's request for
exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of a
"lot split" and an amendment to a recorded plat is proper and
hereby grants an exception from the full subdivision process for
such "lot split" and plat amendment, pursuant to Section 20-19 of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as amended.
Dated this
day of
, 1984.
(""',
,--
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST,
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorney, by,
I, Kathryn S. Koch, do hereby certify that the foregoing
STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF A "LOT SPLIT" AND FOR MAKING CHANGES TO A RECORDED
PLAT was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its
regular meeting held , 1984, at which time the
Mayor was authorized to execute the'- same on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk