HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Murphy-Blk 91-Hallam's Add.1980Na1%Z) - EC, .
MURPHY (Block 91 Hallams)
E
C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office \L
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office --
DATE: January 11, 1980
RE: Murphy Subdivision Exception, Block 91, Hallam's Addition
Having reviewed the improvement survey map for the above sub-
division exception and made a site inspection, the Engineering De-
partment recommends the following:
1) That the improvement survey as submitted by the owner/
applicant be accepted as a conceptual plat.
2) We recommend that the owner/applicant follow section 20-
14 of the final plat procedure and submit a final plat for re-
view by the Engineering Department per section 20-15 prior to
being placed on the City Council agenda. Some items missing
from the current plat are as follows:
A) Show centerline and edge of pavement on Lake and Gil-
lespie Avenues.
B) Note encroachment of cribbing into Gillespie R.O.W.
C) Show proposed construction.
D) Show on -site parking.
E) Indicate all monuments found and set.
F) Location map (1" = 400').
G) Zoning on and adjacent to property.
H) Certificate of title insurance or attorney's certificate
as disclosure of ownership.
3) Owner/applicant should supply an encroachment agreement
for support cribbing in R.O.W. The agreement should provide
for removal of the cribbing by the owner if requested by the
City.
The Engineering Department recommends conceptual approval of
the Murphy Subdivision Exception subject to the owner/applicant
correcting the above conditions.
•
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM: Louis Buettner, Engineering Department
DATE: October 7, 1980
RE: Murphy Subdivision Exception, Block 91, Hallam's
Addition
Having reviewed the corrected subdivision exception plat, I
find the following:
In a memorandum from Jay Hammond, Engineering, to Sunny Vann,
Planning Office, dated January 11, 1980, certain corrections
were requested to be made to the plat before it would be sub-
mitted to the City Council.
The following three items were requested but have not been
corrected as of this date:
1. The centerline for Lane and Gillespie Avenues should
be shown. This can be overlooked as it is a small
item.
2. The parking requirements shown is not adequate for
the proposed two-story house as shown. John Willer,
of Copland and Hagman Architects, said they do not
have the drawings for the house shown. The proposed
house shown should be removed from the plat.
3. The encroachment agreement for cribbing and planters
in the
streets
are still
required.
Copland Hagmaow Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Cold 81611 303 925 2867
23 September 1980
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: C.F. Murphy Associates, Inc.
Gentlemen:
Please refer to memorandum of April 4, 1980 - Sonny Vann Planning
Office, Murphy's Subdivision Exception.
We are at this time submitting the final exception plat for sub-
division of the C.F. Murphy property at Gillespie Avenue (Block 91,
Hallam's Addition). We feel all appropriate documentation has
been satisified.
Very truly yours
Copland,bagw,.n Yaw Ltd
amJ .. and
Principal
JJC:sb
41 Copland Hagm*w Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colo 81611 303 925 2867
12 March 1980
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: C.F. Murphy Associates, Inc.
Gentlemen:
We are requesting an exception from strict application of
the subdivision regulations as set forth in Section 20-19
of the Subdivision Code for the City of Aspen. The record
owner of the subject property is C.F. Murphy Associates, Inc.
The subject property is described on attached Exhibit A,
and comprises 14,200 square feet.
The owner's purpose in subdividing its property is to
create a 7,200.16 sq.ft. tract on the easterly part of
the land, which will be used to construct a modest two-
story dwelling which will serve as Mr. Murphy's personal
residence. The existing two-story wood frame house located
on the westerly tract, comprising 6,999.83 sq.ft., will
remain in the company's ownership. The existing one-
story shed shown on the easterly tract will be razed
to allow construction of the new residence.
We might point out that there exists a tennis court at
the north part of the property which spans both proposed
tracts. Mr. Murphy is willing to do whatever may be
required in this regard, and since he will still own both
lots, this can perhaps best be handled by granting perpetual
use easements between the two lots.
Very truly yours,
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
JJC:ae
Attachment
•
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Murphy Final Plat
DATE: October 20, 1980
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Background
As the attached lette i dicates, th pplicant is requesting an exception
from the strict applic oy' n of the Ci s subdivision regulations in order
to subdivide a 14,200 square foot parcel of land located on Gillespie Avenue
(Block 92, Hallam's Addition). The applicant wishes to divide the parcel
into two tracts, creating an approximately 7,200 square foot lot on which
to build a new residence and a 7,000 square foot lot on which the applicant's
existing single-family dwelling is located.
While the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 square
feet applicable in the R-6 zone, insufficient frontage exists along Gillespie
Avenue to meet the zone's minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet. In
addition, the applicant's existing residence does not meet the zone's mini-
mum side yard requirement. Pursuant to Section 20-9(c), "no subdivision shall
be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of
any applicable zoning ordinance." The applicant, however, has obtained
variances from the Board of Adjustment addressing both the minimum lot width
and side yard requirements.
On April 8, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the applicant's
request for subdivision exception subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant's improvement survey being accepted as a conceptual
plat.
2. The applicant submitting a final plat to the Engineering Department
pursuant to Sections 20-14 and 20-15 of the Municipal Code prior
to being placed on the City Council agenda. Additional items to
be addressed by the applicant were outlined in the Department's
attached memorandum dated January 11, 1980.
3. The applicant supplying an encroachment agreement for the support
cribbing located in the City's right-of-way.
4. The proposed new residence being subject to the six-month minimum
lease restrictions of 20-22.
Recommendation
The Engineering Department and the Planning Office have reviewed the appli-
cant's final plat and encroachment agreement and have found everything to
be in order. The encroachment agreement is included in your packet as a
separate item and is scheduled for disposition under your consent agenda.
A copy of the final plat will be available for your review at your Monday
meeting. The Planning Office recommends approval of the applicant's final
plat subject to the execution of a six-month minimum lease agreement prior
to issuance of a building permit for the proposed new residence. Should
you concur, the appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to approve the C.F. Murphy final plat subject to the execution of
an appropriate six-month minimum lease agreement prior to issuance of a
building permit for the proposed new residence."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Murphy Subdivision Exception
DATE: April 4, 1980
As the attached letter indicates, the applicant is requesting an exception
from the strict application of the City's subdivision regulations in order to
subdivide a 14,200 square foot parcel of land located on Gillespie Avenue
(Block 91, Hallam's Addition). The applicant wish 4 to divide the parcel
into two tracts, creating an approximately 7,200 square foot lot on which to
build a new residence and a 7,000 square foot lot on which the applicant's
existing single-family dwelling is located.
While the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 square
feet applicable in the R-6 zone, insufficient frontage exists along Gillespie
Avenue to meet the zone's minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet. In
addition, the applicant's existing residence does not meet the zone's mini-
mum side yard requirement. Pursuant to Section 20-9(c), "No subdivision
shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provi-
sions of any applicable zoning ordinance..." The applicant, however, has
obtained variances from the Board of.Adjustment addressing both the minimum
lot width and side yard requirements. \1
The Engineering Department therefore recommends thO'the applicant's request
for exception from full subdivision procedures be approved subject to the
following:
1. The applicant's improvement survey being accepted as a conceptual
plat.
2. The applicant submitting a final plat to the Engineering Depart-
ment pursuant to Sections 20-14 and 15 of the Municipal Code prior
to being placed on the City Council agenda. Additional items to
be addressed by the applicant are outlined in the Department's
attached memorandum dated January 11, 1980.
3. The applicant supplying an encroachment agreement for the support
cribbing located in the City's right-of-way.
The Planning Office concurs with the Engineering Department's recommendation
with the additional stipulation that the proposed new residence be subject
to the 6-month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22.
-7—
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FC+N 1! C. F. NOf[Rrl 6. R. • L. CA.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08, 1980
moved to adopt and send to Council the proposed Ordinance
for the Lodge Preservation as amended in our discussions.
Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Repeal of Sections Karen Smith stated that the Repeal of Sections 20-22(c)
:?0-22(c) and (d) and (d) and is a major undertaking and has not been before
you because it is a major overturning of something this
commission has recommended to Council in terms of dis-
placement effects of condominiumization. This would re-
quire considerable time to review.
Olof Hedstrom suggested that this discussion and action
on item B under New Business to the next regular meeting.
)31ake Stream Sunny Vann introduced the Blake Stream Margin Review and
Margin Review the applicant proposes to build a four bedroom two story
single family residence on Red Butte Drive and since part
of the structure is within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork
River and is subject to stream margin review. The Engi-
neering Department recommends approval as stated in the
memorandum of April .4, 1980. The Planning Office recom-
mends approval without condition of the Blake Stream
Margin Review.
Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to approve the Blake
Stream Margin Review without conditions. Nancy McDonnell
so moved and Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
Naiman Subdivi- Sunny Vann introduced the Naiman Subdivision Exemption
sion Exemption a duplex located on Cemetary Lane. This does not fall
within the employee housing price guidelines. The Engi
neering Department recommends approval subject to con-
ditions stated in Jay Hammond's memorandum of April 1,
1980. The City Attorney recommends approval subject to
complying with the notice and option and six month min-
imum lease restrictions of Section 20-22 of the Muni-
cipal Code. The Planning Office recommends approval
subject the the conditions set by the Engineering Depart-
ment and the City Attorney.
Perry Harvey moved'to approve the Naiman Subdivision Ex-
emption subject to the Engineering conditions in their
April 3, 1980 and subject to owner/applicant complying
with the notice and option and six month minimum lease
restrictions of Section 20-22. Lee Pardee seconded. All
in favor, motion carried.
iurphy Subdivision Sunny Vann introduced the Murphy Subdivision Exception
;xception stating the applicant is requesting an exception from the
strict application of the City's subdivision regulations
in order to subdivide a 14,200 sq.ft. parcel of land lo-
cated on Gillespie Avenue. This has an existing single
family residence and proposes to create a-7,200 sq.ft.
lot for a new residence and a 7,000 sq.ft. lot for the
existing single-family dwelling. The Engineering Depart-
ment recommends approval of exception fo"Em full subdivi-
sion procedures subject to conditions set out in the
Planning Offices memorandum of April 4, 1980. The Plan-
ning Office recommends approval subject to Engineering's
conditions and additional stipulation that the proposed
new residence be subject to the 6 month minimum lease
restriction of Section 20-22.
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
�O.Y 41 C. r H.rf KrL .... • L. [.1.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08, 1980
Perry Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Murphy
Subdivision Exception, Block 91, Hallam's Addition condi-
tioned upon the Engineering Department's comments in memo
of January 11, 1980 and subject the applicant's improve-
ment survey being accepted as a conceptual plat and the
applicant submitting a final plat to the Engineering De-
partment pursuant to Section 20-14 and 15 of the Munici-
pal Code prior to being placed on the Council agenda and
the new residence be subject to the 6 month minimum lease
restriction of Section 20-22, and the applicant supply an
encroachment agreement for the support cribbing located
in the City's right-of-way. Lee Pardee seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
Perry Harvey motion to adjourn the meeting. Lee Pardee
seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting
adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
,%_J, yhgL�
Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk
PROPARTY
14-
ASPEN, COLORADVO
5URVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
i, J�IMI=S r RFSCR, r,ERE Y CEY7rY 7HI5 M^f' 9CMC5C1,175 AN 4C7U L f1ELD
"URYCY WOE UNDER W 5UPFRVMi0N IN NCVrM5ER OF 1971 Cr THE FOl1OvVIN6
DE5f--RLf3CU TR'PCT OF LN<),
P�P�L I
ATKA T OP LANO 51n,lAlED IN r-tN-LAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
CtXX�41t-1 01` I'ITKIN, COLORADO, PANG MOPE PAKTiCC,LARLy DE5CR15t-D
A5 i ULOA15
M61NNiNG AT THE EPE6T i/4 COKNER, SCC. 12, ` 10:t, Rf)5W, 6,TH P.l-{.
(A 1954 6F/-')5 C,P); T1-'ENC7- NG4014117'W 904.35 FT. -TU IHE.
tGUTHWE5TERLN COKNEROF N-O--K -0, 1-IALLAM'S ADDITiONj "THENCE
NeJ052' W 13.E FT. ALC J THE N0RT1-iEFWl LINE- OF a LESPiE
AVLNI.JE -DTHE: RDINT OF 5�1NNING;
l'}1E1',rz N00,38' W 120.01 FJ'c--)i
THENCE NS,'52' W -79.10 FEET,
7HENa --CO. 08' W 20.00 FEET TO THE NOieTHEA'TI=KL'-1 COf;ZNI=R
OF LOF Cv, DLCCX 91, HALLAM'S ADDITiON;
-THEI- . N51°52'W 57.50 FEET;
T}1ENCE tOD 01!'W 1Q0.00 FEET -'7 THE WO THEF L-Lt LINE Or
GI LLiSPI E AV>`NUEj
iHl_1 5�1°52'E 111.00 FEET ALONG IHE NORTHEKL`i LINE OF
GILLESI'1E AVENUE TO THE POINT OF 5E61NNINGT A i'ORTION OF 7HE APIE'
DEXKI5ED PTz0PEFT-4 Alm DE5CJZ,E5ED A5 LOT (, AND THE FAIT HALF
OF LOT 5, 5(:7CK `t! . } iAL))-AM "5 ADDITIC^N ?D 1HF CiTY C FEN;
PARCEL 2 •
ATKPCT OF LAND SITUATED iN HALlAM'S A001110N TO THe CM4 OF A'-fr-N,
QX NT4 Or PITKIN) C0tDKh00, Mt-* MCKIr 1�JLU-f CEtCRIff-D A5 FOUL #
BEC�NNiNG ^T TtlE E�5T i/4 C091.1ER OF OEC..12, TIOS, K135V, G11-i P.M.
C A 1`154 (3KPA55 CAP IN PL NCC)/' 71E�,CZ N&4'14' 17° W 904.55 TO THE.
=UTHWESTERLy =FNE2 OF BLOCK 90, HALLAM'S A 001 T10N; -THENCE
N9j9°-"72'W i5.00 FT. T07HE 50Ui lD-,tFTML.N C0KNEZ0FLOTC,, FLOCK 91/
i-iAL1 `-) THf:f r` NCXO'05' E 100.00 FT. ALONG TriE
rA5TEiCL4 5pE OF LOT Cp, BLC.CK 91, }-4ALLAM'�, ADDITION, TU 7NE
NOK, -IEASTE);�I-`'1 CORNER OF LOT (o lD THE POINT OF 5EEE�INNIN&
7HENNNa N"a521W 5750 FEET,
'THENCE NC0006 E 20•CO FEET,
THENCE t6i, 52' E 57.50 fF-r-T;
7}-iENCE 50005'w 20.00 FEET TO 7HE R71NT OF 5155INNING1'
AND THC -TWO STORH V`C100 FRAME HOUSE AND THE ONE 5Y0Fc4 WOOD FIZ4ME
--IED WERE FOUNDTD vE LOShTFIO ENTl9r-L-t' WIT l N Tl- 5GUNC-\RL4 LINES (OF
THE Ato/E DExe113ED f f�OIERTl1 AS 5tiC7wN HEieECN. 7HE LOCATION AND
0MEN5ION5 CT THE 5CUNIOAR4 LJNES, (!)UILOING-�,, Iiit MOVEMENT'S,
EA MENTS, KJC�I-iTs of= Wk-4 IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO Mt= AND
CN�C k tMENTS 54 OR ON -THESE PREMISES PCZ-UKATEL`-f -SOWN
CN Trtt5 MAI'.
JA 5 . KE5EK, L.5. 11154
... -ter K.. ..- .•{u.rr.:
' - .. •r
... .a �Ld,.•aQ'.�R'T �'.•'•.•...��i�,. - .. ��' •syw•. .'fJr.�w/s•�, ..
.. ,-3.,: ..ai. t(. wJ.. ......a.J,ib—L•�Gii t.. ..... .... -._ _'..i, ... «."�"wY�Y�vls'w4' .._ ,.. s -TM
.- , .a.� a..
.. .. ., _
1
1
3
�
'
�Gl7CMCNT R7R TUIP46G:)URT EwFn�,CHMCN H;�-_ urea-
- -- •
��• r
T _
t
�L, ,,L' ; 1, ��
I t7CLD•
CST 117G/
(0000
--J
HALAM•7
ADDITION
I
?E17I t!•I
Y
GOIJRr
IN_
W 8_ TER_LY
TR� ,
<�
i
�9yg.o3 r,� mr
FJ�'�TER `TIC i
ul
7200.ic, su,ee rErr
5
6
-W
L':.•Y 7GN'iJ E
0 o Mrx
a5� P^71p
Inoo
w
1
I
1
0
a
I v
i
1
j
I
WAA O• Ruow rtw�tr® ��
fmo3KD• ,-894N,r I19.co
%4 t
rcAvrfT
•.. i... •cw• ♦._ .. .,r..._r� ".M.a ....-AiMh+.:r r..—. x.x4,w+r �wgLldl. ..
r
m'
0
0 1 0
Fred made the motion that the action of the assistant
building inspector, in revoking the building permit,
be upheld. Francis seconded the motion. Each member
was polled for their decision: John Herz, not allowec
to vote; Francis, yes; Josephine, yes; Remo, yes;
Charles, yes; Fred, yes. Unanimous decision that the
request be denied.
Case 80-2
Case Head Having appeared before the Board on February 14, 198C
RIck the case had been tabled in order to get the opinion
of the City Attorney regarding the legal status of tt.(
lot; whether it had been sold illegally.
Ron Stock said he had reviewed the minutes of April
1977 (for Board of Adjustment), when the variance hau
been granted originally, but that he was unaware of
the fact that it had been sold illegally. The Board
confirmed that it was an illegal sale evident in the
minutes of the meeting in 1977. The minutes indicate
that Fred had stated, "It was illegal to convey a
nonconforming piece of propert. If it happens,
you can have the sale set aside."
The original sale of the property happened 20 years �i
(1960) when the Marolts subdivided the property and
conveyed it to a relative. The ordinance concerning
subdividing property less than 6,000 square feet was
adopted in 1956. Four years subsequent to that ordin
ance, the property was subdivided. .
Ruling upon this condition, Ron said that a doctrine
of equity called "latches" meant that so much time ha
elapsed with knowledge of the City, that the Cite; v
not allow the Board to challenge the illegal sal..
Josephine made the motion to grant a variance for an
addition to an existing single family dwelling on a
lot below minimum size because of the hardship that
was subdivided illegally 20 years ago. Fred seconder
the motion; all in favor, motion granted.
New Business
0-se No. 80-4 Remo read the application for a variance from Aspen
Murphy/Copeland, Municipal Code, Article VIII, Section 24-8.13 to all(
Hagman, Yaw the applicant (C.F. Murphy) to subdivide his propert,
into two parcels. The subdivision will leave one of
the parcels with a lot width of 59 feet. The minimum
required lot width is 60 feet. This according to
Section 24-3.4, Area and Bulk Requirements, R-6 Zonis
District.
Jim Copeland made his presentation for the applicant
Mr. Murphy. Confurring with his client, and as the
architect for this project, they decided they wanted
to subdivide the property and build another Victoria
building. They would then be creating one legal 60
foot width lot, and one nonconforming lot of 59 feet
The nonconforming lot would have the existing buildi
on it. The conforming lot would not have anything o
it at this time.
Attorney Boots Ferguson was also present on behalf o
the applicant. He discussed existing conditions and
what they wanted to do with the property. He said t
part of the difficulty with the case were the descre
encies in the surveys that had been done over a per.i
of time. Mr. James Reser's survey is the one that h
been used for this case. It indicated that it was o
foot short of the minimum width (60 feet). Mr. Rese
submitted a letter to Clayton Meyring, building insD
tor, stating that although he felt his survey was
I
accurate, the monuments set by Gerard Pesman would
place the west line of the Murphy property three feet
west of Mr. Reser's survey. This would have made the
lot two feet larger than required. This letter from
Mr. Reser dated January 30, 1980.
Mr. Ferguson said that it was difficult to decide whicr
survey to use but rather than create future problems,
it would be best to get the descrepency resolved at
this point. It was felt that they should use the 59
foot width lot rather than the 62 foot lot to be safe.,
Ron concurred that there are survey descrepencies but
that the federal government has resurveyed the Meets
and Bounds mining claim line as of last year. This
will directly affect the surveys done in the northern
section of the City where this property is located.
Francis added that he thought the intent of the City
in requiring 60 foot widths was based upon 100 foot
depth so that there would be 6,000 square feet. Both
lots are well over that in square footage. There is
a practical difficulty because of survey errors, but
it will not damage the general plan or neighborhood.
Two letters from neighbors were read. Lydia Marquand
and Ann Altemus wrote letters in objection to the
variance.
Mr. Copeland responded to the letters stating that
the case was before the Board of Adjustment not for a
subdivision, but as a nonconforming lot.
Remo suggested to Mr. Copeland and Mr. Ferguson that
they approach the people in the neighborhood to clari:
and reassure them of their intentions.
Fred made the motion to grant the requested variance -
create a nonconforming lot as shown on the plat due
to the hardship created by descrepencies in the orig-
inal annexation survey and because each lot is sub-
stantially larger than the minimum 6,000 square feet
required. The motion was seconded by Francis. All
were in favor; motion granted.
Board Comments Remo asked about expired terms. Ron said that he
had sent Josephine and Remo letters requesting that
they remain on the Board. Their letters of applicatio',i,
would then be submitted to City Council on March 24
for review.
Remo also brought up the confusion of the wording in
the Posting Requirements of Ordinance 12. He asked
that Ron clarify the wording as far as what is meant
by "seen". Remo requested that this word be replaced
by "readable" from such a street or highway. No one
should have to trespass on anyone's property to read -
the sign.
Motion was made to adjourn the meeting by Fred.
Seconded by Charlie; all in favor, meeting adjourned
at 6:20.
Susan nson, Deputy City
Clerk
-7-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Fmm % C. /. morcxa 1. N. & L. CJ.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08, 1980
moved to adopt and send to Council the proposed Ordinance
for the Lodge Preservation as amended in our discussions.
Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Repeal of Sections Karen Smith stated that the Repeal of Sections 20-22(c)
20-22(c) and (d) and (d) and is a major undertaking and has not been before
you because it is a major overturning of something this
commission has recommended to Council in terms of dis-
placement effects of condominiumization. This would re-
quire considerable time to review.
Olof Hedstrom suggested that this discussion and action
on item B under New Business to the next regular meeting.
Blake Stream Sunny Vann introduced the Blake Stream Margin Review and
Margin Review the applicant proposes to build a four bedroom two story
single family residence on Red Butte Drive and since part
of the structure is within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork
River and is subject to stream margin review. The Engi-
neering Department recommends approval as stated in the
memorandum of April 4, 1980. The Planning Office recom-
mends approval without condition of the Blake Stream
Margin Review.
Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to approve the Blake
Stream Margin Review without conditions. Nancy McDonnell
so moved and Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
Naiman Subdivi- Sunny Vann introduced the Naiman Subdivision Exemption
sion Exemption a duplex located on Cemetary Lane. This does not fall
within the employee housing price guidelines. The Engi
neering Department recommends approval subject to con-
ditions stated in Jay Hammond's memorandum of April 1,
1980. The City Attorney recommends approval subject to
complying with the notice and option and six month min-
imum lease restrictions of Section 20-22 of the Muni-
cipal Code. The Planning Office recommends approval
subject -the the conditions set by the Engineering Depart-
ment and the City Attorney.
Perry Harvey moved to approve the Naiman Subdivision Ex-
emption subject to the Engineering conditions in their
April 3, 1980 and subject to owner/applicant complying
with the notice and option and six month minimum lease
restrictions of Section 20-22. Lee Pardee seconded. All
in favor, motion carried.
Murphy Subdivision Sunny Vann introduced the Murphy Subdivision Exception
Exception stating the applicant is requesting an exception from the
strict application of the City's subdivision regulations
in order to subdivide a 14,200 sq.ft. parcel of land lo-
cated on Gillespie Avenue. This has an existing single
family residence and proposes to create a'7,200 sq.ft.
lot for a new residence and a 7,000 sq.ft. lot for the
existing single-family dwelling. The Engineering Depart-
ment recommends approval of exception form full subdivi-
YY\ sion procedures subject to conditions set out in the
Planning Offices memorandum of April 4, 1980. The Plan-
ning Office recommends approval subject to Engineering's
conditions and additional stipulation that the proposed
1 new residence be subject to the 6 month minimum lease
n/ restriction of Section 20-22.
1
•
WE
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM sF C. F. MOFCMFL R. R. A L. C 1.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08, 1980
Perry Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Murphy
Subdivision Exception, Block 91, Hallam's Addition condi-
tioned upon the Engineering Department's comments in memo
of January 11, 1980 and subject the applicant's improve-
ment survey being accepted as a conceptual plat and the
applicant submitting a final plat to the Engineering De-
partment pursuant to Section 20-14 and 15 of the Munici-
pal Code prior to being placed on the Council agenda and
the new residence be subject to the 6 month minimum lease
restriction of Section 20-22, and the applicant supply an
encroachment agreement for the support cribbing located
in the City's right-of-way. Lee Pardee seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
Perry Harvey motion to adjourn the meeting. Lee Pardee
seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting
adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
zz%_J'
YhLA-a-apift,
Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Murphy Subdivision Exception
DATE: April 4, 1980
As the attached letter indicates, the applicant is requesting an exception
from the strict application of the City's subdivision regulations in order to
subdivide a 14,200 square foot parcel of land located on Gillespie Avenue
(Block 91, Hallam's Addition). The applicant wishe`d>to divide the parcel
into two tracts, creating an approximately 7,200 square foot lot on which to
build a new residence and a 7,000 square foot lot on which the applicant's
existing single-family dwelling is located.
While the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 square
feet applicable in the R-6 zone, insufficient frontage exists along Gillespie
Avenue to meet the zone's minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet. In
addition, the applicant's existing residence does not meet the zone's mini-
mum side yard requirement. Pursuant to Section 20-9(c), "No subdivision
shall be approved which includes elements notin conformance with the provi-
sions of any applicable zoning ordinance..." The applicant, however, has
obtained variances from the Board of Adjustment addressing both the minimum
lot width and side yard requirements.
The Engineering Department therefore recommends the the applicant's request
for exception from full subdivision procedures be approved subject to the
following:
1. The applicant's improvement survey being accepted as a conceptual
plat.
2. The applicant submitting a final plat to the Engineering Depart-
ment pursuant to Sections 20-14 and 15 of the Municipal Code prior
to being placed on the City Council agenda. Additional items to
be addressed by the applicant are outlined in the Department's
attached memorandum dated January 11, 1980.
3. The applicant supplying an encroachment agreement for the support
cribbing located in the City's right-of-way.
The Planning Office concurs with the Engineering Department's recommendation
with the additional stipulation that the proposed new residence be subject
to the 6-month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22.
Copland Hagman sk Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colora*81611 303 925 2867
12 March 1980
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: C.F. Murphy Associates, Inc.
Gentlemen:
} We are requesting an exception from strict application of
the subdivision regulations as set forth in Section 20-19
of the Subdivision Code for the City of Aspen. The record
owner of the subject property is C.F. Murphy Associates, Inc.
The subject property is described on attached Exhibit A,
and comprises 14,200 square feet.
The owner's purpose in subdividing its property is to
create a 7,200.16 sq.ft. tract on the easterly part of
the land, which will be used to construct a modest two-
story dwelling which will serve as Mr. Murphy's personal
residence. The existing two-story wood frame house located
on the westerly tract, comprising 6,999.83 sq.ft., will
remain in the company's ownership. The existing one-
story shed shown on the easterly tract will be razed
to allow construction of the new residence.
We might point out that there exists a tennis court at
the north part of the property which spans both proposed
tracts. Mr. Murphy is willing to do whatever may be
required in this regard, and since he will still own both
lots, this can perhaps best be handled by granting perpetual
use easements between the two lots.
Very truly yours,
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
James -- opland
Principal
JJC:ae
Attachment
i
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: Jim Reents
DATE: January 8, 0
SUBJECT: Murphy Subdivision Exemption
This is a lot separation and as such, has no implications
involving the Housing Office.
Regarding Joe's comment to do a lot split exempt from the
Growth Management Plan, only a single family dwelling can be
built on the newly created lot.
JR:ds
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer
�n Stock, City Attorney
Jim Reents, City Housing Director
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Murphy Subdivision Exemption
DATE: December 17, 1979
Attached please find application for subdivision exemption submitted by
C. F. Murphy Associates, Inc. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, January 22, 1980. Therefore, may
I have your written comments concerning this application no later than Monday,
January 14, 1980. Thank you.
0
NOTE: There isan obscure regulation in the City Code (Section 24-12.6(b))
which very few people know about that permits construction of a
duplex on an 8,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone. It may only be
interpreted to apply to lots of record at the time of the amendment,
but it is subject to interpretation and the.lot should probably be
deed restricted to a single unit.
Joe Wells -Planning Office.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Ron Stock, City Attorney
Jim Reents, City Housing Director
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Murphy Subdivision Ex�rtp ions"
DATE: December 17, 1979
Attached please find application for subdivision exemption submitted by
C. F. Murphy Associates, Inc. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, January 22, 1980. Therefore, may
I have your written comments concerning this application no later than Monday,
January 14, 1980. Thank you.
NOTE: There isan obscure regulation in the City Code (Section 24-12.6(b))
which very few people know about that permits construction of a
duplex on an 8,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone. It may only be
interpreted to apply to lots of record at the time of the amendment,
but it is subject to interpretation and the lot should probably be
deed restricted to a single unit.
Joe Wells -Planning Office.
Copland Hagma&w Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Col Co
81611 303 925 2867
LJ
12 December 1979
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: C. F. Murphy Associates, Inc.
Gentlemen:
We are requesting an exception from strict application of the
subdivision regulations as set forth in Section 20-19 of the
Subdivision Code for the City of Aspen. The record owner of
the subject property is C. F. Murphy Associates, Inc. The
subject property is described on attached Exhibit A, and com-
prises 14,200 square feet.
The owner's purpose in subdividing its property is to create
an 8,200 sq.ft. tract on the easterly part of the land, which
will be used to construct a modest two-story dwelling which
will serve as Mr. Murphy's personal residence. The existing
two-story wood frame house located on the westerly tract, com-
prising 6,000 sq.ft., will remain in the company's ownership.
The existing one-story shed shown on the easterly tract will
be razed to allow construction of the new residence.
We feel that it is the "substantial property right" of every
landowner whose property is located in an R-6 zone, to be
allowed to build a single family residential structure for
each 6,000 sq.ft. of property. The property under consideration
has square footage of over that required for a standard lot
split (i.e., four contiguous City lots into two single family
sites), the only difference being that the property does not
have the regular boundaries that make other lot splits obvious.
Our request is in strict compliance with existing zoning codes,
and, consequently, no adjacent land owner will be adversely
affected.
• Copland Hagman& Ltd Architects
City of Aspen - Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: C. F. Murphy Associates, Inc.
12 December 1979
Page 2 of 2
We might point out that there exists a tennis court at the
north part of the property which spans both proposed tracts.
Mr. Murphy is willing to do whatever may be required in this
regard, and since he will still own both lots, this can
perhaps best be handled by granting perpetual use easements
between the two lots.
Very truly yours,
Copland-j�a�gman Yaw Ltd
C!jJait .. •Principal
JJC/g
Attachment
•
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of
SEE EXHIBIT "A"
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in
the name of
C.F. Murphy Associates, Inc., a corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of the State of Illinois.
and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following:
None
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be
construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of
title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc.,
neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability
whatever on any statement contained herein.
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 29th day of November A.D.
19 79 at 8:00 A.M.
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
B
EXHIBIT A
Parcel 1: A tract of land situated in Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen,
County of Pitkin, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the East 1/4 corner, Sec.12, T10S, R85W, 6th P.M. (a 1954 Brass
Cap); thence N64°14117"W 904.35 ft. to the southwesterly corner of Block 90,
Hallam's Addition; thence N89°52'W 13.50 ft. along the northerly line of Gillespie
Avenue to the point of beginning; thence N00°38'W 120.01 ft.; thence N89°52'W
59.90 ft.; thence S00008'W 20.00 ft. to the northeasterly corner of Lot 6, Block
91, Hallam's Addition; thence N890521W 57.50 ft.; thence S00°08'W 100.00 ft. to
the northerly line of Gillespie Avenue; thence S89°52'E 119.00 ft. along the
northerly line of Gillespie Avenue to the point of beinning; a portion of the
above -described property also described as Lot 6 and the east half of Lot 5,
Block 91, Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen.
Parcel 2: A tract of land situated in Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen,
County of Pitkin, Colorado, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at
the East 1/4 corner of Sec. 12, T10S, R85W, 6th P.M. (a 1954 Brass Cap in place);
thence N64°14'17"W 904.35 ft. to the southwesterly corner of Block 90, Hallam's
Addition; thence N89052'W 75.00 ft. to the southeasterly corner of Lot 6, Block 91,
Hallam's Addition; thence N00°08'E 100.00 ft. along the easterly side of Lot 6,
Block 91, Hallam's Addition to the northeasterly corner of Lot 6 to the point of
beginning; thence N89052'W 57.50 ft.; thence N00°08'E 20.00 ft.; thence S89°52'E
57.50 ft.; thence S00008'W 20.00 ft. to the point of beginning.
t � 10110INI N ( @ 1*ll 1-:1"" 1 M I (s)
C F. MURPHY PROPERTY
��J.1WA�
OWNER
C.F MURPHY
224 SOUTH MICHIGAN
CHICAGO, ILLIN(D15 &)&o4
ARICHITECT
O--PLP.ND HAGMAN YAW LTD i
DOX 2376
ASPEN, ClOLORADO SI(A l
303.925.2&°7
5U RVEYOR
ALPINE 5U(ZVEY5
BOX 1750
ASPEN, COLOKAP0 bl(,Il
303. 925. 2!D 85
0 5 10 20 3() 40 50 CDOFT
SCALE- I'=101 --- 1T.Tf• 21NOVEMF71ER1971
PUA515OF GEARING' 55151'51'I- 3ETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS-- A `1ELLOW PLA5TIC,
CAP MARKED "L5 2371," AND A'1ELLOW PLA3TL CAP MARKED "L.S.-11644A5 SHOWN.
NOTES
A5 NOTED HERI"fJN IN 7HE PROPEP DESC TION, THE WARRANTH DEED
WORDED IN COOK 258 AT PAGE 71L, OF THE , ITKIN COUNTI Kf:COICDS CALL5
FOR BEARINGS ON HALIAM'S P\DDITCN I3LCZK5 OF NOO'OS'E 50006W,
559°52'E AND Nb9°52' W WHEREAS ALL AVAILf'\BLE EVIDENCE. INDICATES THE
TRUE. BEARING TO 13E NORTH, 5OUTH, EAST AND WEST
LAM'S ADDITION
p03,9
9�
35
1954 U.S. DKA�)5 CAP
EA5T 114 CORNER SECTION l2
TIOh, R85 W OF (cTM P.A^,
VMRIPTION OF E�600ENT IQRTENN15COURT ENCKO CHMENT
A TRACT Or LAND 5111JArM IN THE --0UI`HWE5T OF THE NGRTt1EA5T
QUARTER OF SECTION 12, 70WN SHIP 10 :�X)7Ft, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE
51XTH PRINGPAL MERIDIAN, PITON COUNTS-1, COLortAoo, CON55;TING OF A
PORTION OF LOTS 2 AND?), DLOCK 91, I-IALLAM'S A001TrnJ TOTHF CITyOF^'lPEN
AND OrA, POKTION OF VACATED LAKE AVENUE LUNG NOZTHEKLi OF THE EASTERLi
EXTEN510N OF TF1E SCLTTN LINF_ C�-'�AID LOTS 2 AND 3, MORE PARTK.ULARL''I
DEtCKIBEDA`J FOLLDWS
ff-GINNING AT A FDIINT WHENCE THE EAST gUARTETZCORNER OF AID SLMTICeN 12
GEARS `)Ccl°30'3`I'1= 1078.03 FEET, -
THENCE 117.61 FEET
THENCE SCXUTI-I 1.4(, FEET TO TT--IE „JERO—no" WITH THE SOUTH LINE
EXTENDED OF 5AIQ LOTh 2 AND 3,-
THENCE WEST I IT cot FEET ALONG SAID F-XTEN510N AND ALOIN6 `)AID
50LJT'H LINE,
THENCE NDKTH 1,74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEaNNING,
CONTAINING Ibb.I 5QJARE: FEET, MORE O(Z LC`fi.
______-----7--- ----
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE.
1, JAME5 F. RESER, MXEPX CEF<7Y 11-il5 MAP REPKE5LW75 AN AC7UI',L FIELD
SURVEY NWOE UNDER MY SUPERV1510N IN NOVIEMDER OF 1971 OF THE FOLIOWINC6
DE5CRI13ED 7KPCT OF LAND,
PARCEL I °
A TRPGT OF LAND 51TUA-EF) IN 11ALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF A'5PEN,
CDUN7LI OF PITKIN, COLORADO, EF-ING MOl;E PART1ClXARL4 PE5CRIPiT=D
M&INNINGATTHE E,"67 I/.4 cogNrK,.9EC.12, TIOS, RQjSW, CvTH P.H.
(A 1954 BKA55 CAP); THENCE NG4°14' 1-7"W 904.35 FT. TO THE
5C UTHWE57ERL4 CORNEKOF 1-,,L� 9O, HALLAM'S ADDITION, THENCE
N89052' W 13.E FT. ALONG THE NORTH7:KiJLI LINE OF GIIIESPIE
AVENUE m THE R71NT OF 6l%INNINGj
THEWZ NOO°38' W 120.01 FEET"
THENCE N61°52' W �1.10 FEET]
THENCE 500' Oe W 20.00 FEET TO Tr-1 NORTHEASTEKLH CIJfzNF.R
OF LOT Co, BLOCK 91, HALIAM'S ADOITIONi
THENCE N89°52'W 57..50 FEET,
THENCE 50O°08'W IO0.00 FEET 7011-iE NOKTHEKLLI LINE OF
GILLESPIE AVENUL
TI-D-a 5t9°52'E I I`j.00 FEET ALONG THE NOR7I-IEKL'1 LINE OF
GILIISPIF AVENUE 7D THE POINT OF BEGINNItiIGi A PORTION OF THE A60✓E-
DEx9I6ED PROPEKT-,I AL50 DE50ZIDED A5 LOT G AND THE EAST HALF"
OF L.OT 5, 5LCr-K 9I, HALA-AM'eADDITION 70 THE CITY OF A5PFNi
PARCEL 2
ATKPCT OF LAND SITUATED IN HALIAM'5 ADDITION 707HE-cmt OF A5PEN,
�UNTH OF PITKIN COLORADO, BEING MORE FULLH CE50RI6ZID A5 FOLLLU.IlS',
5ECINNIN6 AT THE EA5T 1/4 CORNER OF 5EC.12 TI05, IF CoTH P.M.
(A 1`154 r5KA55 CAP IN PIACr-)r- TTyEN4 'S' CE NCo4'14' 17° W 90D 70 THE
°10UTHWESTERLH CYOKNETZOF BLOCK 90, HALAM'S ADDITION; THENCE
N 4fl°52' W 75•00 FT. TD THE S0UTI-IEA°9TEKLH COKNIfKOF LLOT (,, ACGK 91,
HALLAM'S ADDITION] THEW-,t NCXD'Opj' E ICO.00 FT. ALONG THE
FA5TERL4 SIDE OF LOT Co, BiO-- K 91, 1-IALLAM', AD DITTCN, TO THE
NOF?, -IF-AtTERLLI CORNER OF LC7FG TO THE POINT OF E55aNNINC-7j
THENCE N"'521W 57.50 FEET/
THENCE NQO°O✓3' E 20.C2O FEET;
THENCE 581°52' E 57.50 FEET;
THENCE 50005'W 20.00 FEET TO THE FRDINT OF BEGINNING]
AND -THE TVvD STORH WOOD FRAME HOUSE AND THE ONE 5VFY WOOD FRAME
SHED WERE FCUNDTO 15E LLTATT=LD ENTTRELH WITHIN 7HT:- f30UNC16%RH LINES OF
THE A50v/E DE5CR15ED PKOrr: RTll A5 5HOWN HEREON. THE LOCATION AND
DIMEN51ON5 OF THE 50UNOAR4 LINES, DUILOINGS, IMFrOVEMENTS,
EASEMENT`>, KlEf-17"OF WA`-1 IN kVIDF_NCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND
ENCRC I IMENTS BH OR ON 7HESE PTZF_M15E5 ART, ACCUKATEL`( 5-IOoVN
ON THIg MAP.
JA 57 KE5EK, L. ,. 1154