Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Murphy-Blk 91-Hallam's Add.1980 ......" " MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office Jay Hammond, Engineering Office ~ FROM: 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/applilcant fdllow 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. ~~_.,_~,____~._'"~".__'~K'____.~_'_~.~' '"" '-. " , .' CITY 130 so aspen, treet 1611 TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office Louis Buettner, Engineering Department~~ FROM: 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. (J~ ~ ~6. .. V' C;;t7 /'J /&-...;<&-8-8 Cc7t//VC// L . ., , .' Copland HagmaOw LId Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen COla::), 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 ~d a J op and Pri nci pa 1 ------- JJC:sb . .. _./ . t... - .., Copland HagmCW LId Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen COh~O 81611 3039252867 12 March 1980 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: C.F. Murphy Associates, Inc. Gent lemen: 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. , wi 11 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 - ~'" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Murphy Final Plat DATE: October 20, 1980 d APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ 1d I {' Background As the attached lette pplicant is requesting an exception from the strict applic on of the Ci y'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. Theapplicant 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 wisheevto 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 theithe applicant's request for exception from full subdivision procedures be approved subject to the fo 11 owi ng: 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 ~upplying 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. ~o \*~ .\ I Ii\ I)l\ '(1..11 C.'."OfCKHB.".4l.C.J. .',,-""'" ~, ,,; " -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Apri:j. 08, 1980 Hegular Meeting Hepeal of Sections ;W-22 (c) and (d) Blake Stream J1argin Review Naiman Subdivi- sion Exemption lurphy Subdivision :xc~ption Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 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. Karen Smith stated that the Repeal of Sections 20-22(c) 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 meetjng. Sunny Vann introduced the Blake Stream Margin Review and 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. Sunny Vann introduced the Naiman Subdivision 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. Sunny Vann introduced the Murphy Subdivision 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- 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. .1\ 'n~"\, c. ',HOHUl B,... l. C.I. Hegular Meeting .....,.' ,- " ,/ , " -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 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. seconded. All in favor, motion approved. adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Lee Pardee Meeting . -ScuJ2' ~Jl~ , Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk II 1...~....'.""f'". '7 t.:,--:_. . m " ... ". ;t, .""jfp j!DtonPDITY'.. it~l~" JL ~ T ~J.. '\. 'rJN, ASPEN, ODjLORAOO : , ! . t , ~ "._....J~ 5U~VEYOR'~ Cr:RTIF~TE. ~.~B r.~, HE:J<:rotcrR1V'YlHl':llMf' ~(~~[}.n~ AN ACTI.J'\L I'KLD ::;J..Jl'.vrY WDt: U'l[)(f1. MY tuf"f:RVl~ON IN I'-CV'Ov1I3ER Of 1'17' ex'iHf: Fo...IONlNG c:.t:=CRlBt:P Tf':I'CT or LfNO. (If' f'~l' ^ T~ or LA."l0 ~I1'U',;n::D IN t1t'IU.AM'~ ,",DOITION 10 1l1( CI,y orr N;>I"'!::N, Q:).JN1'-/ or f'ITKIN, CCtOMOO, ~N& MORr: f'A~'-f DEecR1e.eo ,to 1'O.LOJb. et6INNINGAT lHE VCT 1/.4 CO~U:~,.5I::C,12, Tl0~, ~tI<:>W, G7n-j P.ltl.. (A 1'I!:>4 ~::> o-.p) j THEN::E NG-40I4'Il'W "D4..3'2> n 10 "!HE. ect)lHwr:~lERLLf CORNEf'1..Cf e>t.CCK '10, HAUAN1''7 ADOIllONi 11-iEN:E Netlo52'W 12>.<::0 FT. AI.DN&"THE t-ORn-\t:Rl..4 LINE. or 6l~e:. AV1:NlX 10 TI-IE fOlNi OF e>a:;!NNIi'Gi 1HENZ Noo.~e' W \'20.01 reE1J' "THEN:;f: NeJ" 52' W ~,,\O FEEl,. 1Hl::1'U :xx;- 05' vi 20.00 FEET TO 11-\r NOFm-i~~LY COR:N~ or LOf u, e>lCX:K 91, Ht'.LLAM'~ A00l11O'-li 11-jE},cr. NIW!7l'W <:1].50 fEET; lHE:.N:f: ~CO'oo'vI lCO.OOFl::E:T lOTHf: N:JR1HE:.!':l."I1INE: or' GILLE:jPIE Avt:NUE:.i 11-IEN::E' beN.52'E 11'1.00 FEET ALONG lHE NORTJ-IEpQ'1 LINE OF GlLL!:>f'If: AV'tNlJE: lO 11-\r: POINT OF 5c61NN1NGi ^ rt:::KTlON (f 1l-IE ~~ ~XRI&.O f1;::OPE:F':'14 ALeO OEecRle>ED A? LOT (. AND 1HF FA'?T HAlf" OF lOT '7, BLCCK" I. f-lA.Ll.AM'? ADDtllnN 10 ll--If' rl1Y Or' ^=>PEN i . . , ,'" .... . PMa:L 2. ~ ATIVeT Of LAND ~11UA"Tl::0 IN HAl.LAM'~ AODrnON '10 lHr. Cn4 Of A~, a::uN1\.f Of PI1K1N, c.cw~OO, OCIN& t.1C)i:t: fULLf cr~D 10 R:U.Q.th. ecaNNIN3 AT"";f: ~~T 1/4 CORJ..l~ 01" ~.I'2, TIO~, f:.fl:,w', Ca1H P.M. C ^ I'I~ e,M~ CAf' IN PlX!:)/ l'HEI'cr.. NCl4"14'I7'W '104.~~ '10 TH~ ro.m;wr~RLLf CO~NE:~Of 6lDCK'IO, HALLAM'? AODtilON; lHEN:E N~'~b2'W l!7.oo FT. '10 \HE' -;oJn-lrA?~LLf ~~Of lOT V, 6lD:.K'l11 t-WJ.AM'? f>QOl1l(JNi 1l-j(NX NCO"QB' E ICO.CO IT. "LeNS 11-iE ~~TE"LLf 'jjOEOF LOTC" BlCCK'lI, HALLAM'~ 1\001110-1, TOl'HE N:lRJrIEi'l~TERL "I CCRNER OF tor c;, 10 "THE fOIN T Of' e.fSNNIN& i 1HENCf Nef!o?2IW ~7.50 FErr; 1HE:1\CE NCO.OO' E 20.CO fEU,. 1\-lEN:C 5e/l"52' f:. 5750 ffET,' . 1HE:.1\CE et:::Cf'OB'W 20.00 I'm 10 lHE IOINT or ~INN'NG; AND 1HC lV.o ~1OR.'1 Y\OJO FAAMe: H()\bE AND THE ONE e,..o~ v.a::o !"RAMI: ~EO WER.t:: fCt)NOlO oE LO::;"il1::0 ~11~l:L4' WI1MIN 1Mf:. eaJND'~ UNc~ Of 1M!:: AeoIE: DE";CRIe>ED fK.0f'!:R1'1 A? ~ONN HE~EQol. iHELCXAllCN AND aMe:N~ON~ Cf' mE eo..JNOAR.'1 UNC?, euILOING~, I \.Al"I<:OVD-lEHJ?, ~MENT'?, RJEtiT";o Of wA.'-f IN !':VIDENCE OR t<NOWN TO Me: AND l::I-aOACHMENT? eIi OR ON 1HE~E Pi<:E:MI?e-? ~ XU)RATEL'1 ~N CN 1l-1l? MAr".. ~~. ~ . "'E=>CR, L.7. '1l)4 J)-i<tJd~< ." , .. .", _. "', ,. ;: ':': '." ,. ....- ". -, ";':; -. "... ..^." .. .,1<0"' :~.e (~' }.- . .....:~;ei.;:...~.. . Yr 11 , \ _ ':',1. 1 i+,J" "-"'v" II, I' ~-I..-.-..-,__,_..J ,....... ,,/ """, ". . ".."-.....",",,. ...'....,-,_,L__ .~,.....,~:'-"...' .~.,.., ..,;,~.1" .,:'....:::-'..,'7:.~,v' ~.< ~i.'""',;~-,~"~."';. .'..','... ""':"'<"~<'.' "',.6....>j.":.;.:,,._ "'-:"'~r-'" "-.......4~"'" ".,,"'.',~" ,-"~'~'. ,. ------ -----_.._---~-,.,---- .. '_,_",-"'-~,h,_",,,; 2 :1 i.. "", "., _ ----....~.It~--.J,.:"O __ .__ '~"._---"-/-~:X"'CNT RJfl T~l5mu~T tl'CRrw:HMci-Jr - I ':~"'.), 'f ;':"~ ~ ; " .,....,..", ',,'.' 111,.,"', ,,~r,'... ." . l'U..... ~":~;':,~.....'L{.V' .' 511.7 fltlD'/ \ r..~'T IIIGoT ~ ~,)t11~~'r. 117.40 ----- '---- {,Coo --t I, I HALL-UK'S AlC'DX'fH}N ------I--"--~----- ; w~~ I lENN'~ : ... 0/AT ~ I :/// ~ ' '!tll~T(R!;( -rnta ~ I ""''t"t,O?~rttr U I I ! I I - u , . . . ccvrr .' . /llOCK ""'" I I I I I I ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~/; ~~ ~ / L{'./ ~U;~ ~TiJ:;LY TI'W:T 72::0.1(1 ~~ ~ . , . 5 6 ~ 88 9 ~- ~~ ~ ~~ . M O~~ %.4!: ~ ~ o " ~ " , d !! ~,CO " lIt:Vo-~7~~O ,I II l -. n[LQ. ":1f 111,00 =D'~Jrt '''00 ~= ~."lI<O.lP'Pl!: , ~LANr~1{ ::::?IZ X/JENUE; .~ ~"_..... ~"~" ,-;,:,~,-:-.~-"~,,,.~ ,-~ - .-.-,..;....,..,.. .',-'~,".....,~ '-''''''''''. -~. ~""""",,",'~__""'.C"""~"'____',~_,"'.'" ':::::it-,. :.~~:~r:'-_::. '., /,j:' , 5 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 Rick Head Having appeared before the Board on February 14, 198C the case had been tabled in order to get the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the legal status of tf.< lot; whether it had been sold illegally. "'. '. . Ron Stock said he had reviewed the minutes of April 7 1977 (for Board of Adjustment), when the variance had 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 a (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 subdiv.ided. 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 City" ,\1 not allow the Board to challenge the illegal sal~. Josephine made the motion to grant a variance for al. addition to an existing single family dwelling on a lot below minimum size because of the hardship that j was subdivided illegally 20 years ago. Fred seconde( the motion; all in favor, motion granted. New Business .se Mo. 80-4 Murphy/Copeland, Hagman, Yaw Remo read the application for a variance from Aspen Municipal Code, Article VIII, Section 24-8.13 to all( 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 Zonil 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 0 it at this time. , I I i i I , , I "; I'. I , I \ I Attorney Boots Ferguson was also present on behalf 0 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 peri of time. Mr. James Reser's survey is the one that h been used for this case. It indicated that it was 0 foot short of the minimum width (60 feet). Mr. Rese submitted a letter to Clayton Meyring, building ins~ tor, stating that although he felt his survey was . ,';.l'; --~~'-- 6 .., ",",,,/ t 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 lo~ two feet larger than required. This letter from Mr. Reser dated January 30, 1980. Mr. Ferguson said that it was difficult to decide whicl survey to use but rather than create future problems, it would be best to get the descrepency resolved at -::h: this point. It was felt that they should use the 59 foot width lot rather than the 62 foot lot to be safe. ROll 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 clarif and reassure them of their intentions. Fred made the motion to grant the requested variance t 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 COlIUllents 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 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. Deputy City Clerk "". \. .. .. " " , ,,,' -7- RECORD Of PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIl" 'A C,'. ~OfCHL 9.". I!. l. C,). Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08, 1980 Regular Meeting Repeal of Sections 20-22(c) and (d) Blake Stream Margin Review Naiman Subdivi- sion Exemption 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. Karen Smith stated that the Repeal of Sections 20-22(c) 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. Sunny Vann introduced the Blake Stream Margin Review and 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. Sunny Vann introduced the Naiman Subdivision Exemption a duplex located on Cemetary Lane. This does not fall within the employee housing price guidelines. The Engi nee ring 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 Exception / &\d y~/\ ~l:. \'K, ,,0 I ,J' , '6, :;1', \ ~;~l*v\ .'-\~~\\\ \j ! \ : \ ,'.~ \J '-;. ,~' Sunny Vann introduced the Murphy Subdivision 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 10- 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- 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. , \11-' ~r;tJ' ,\L '/or 'J' \, \~' 'y-i ~ '\ ~ Y' ! " ,v \1,". . !,v ..', \."\ , .',\-' " \. J '-. \\' , 1.. / , I - "'" ...,,-#" . . -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,OP'!\4 C.r.HOfCKrl",8.l\l.C,I. 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. ~ 3~, ~JJr1 , 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 wishertPto 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. \ The Engineering Department therefore recommends th& the applicant's request for exception from full subdivision procedures be approved subject to the fo 11 owi ng: 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. \~(; \C;\ \ ~\~ ' , " ,\!' 11'\\ . , . - ., . . Copland Hagman. ..N Lid Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Coloraov 81611 3039252867 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 TO: Sunny Vann DATE: FRON: Jim Reents 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 .-.. ,......., MEMORANDU~l TO: Da~ McArthur, City Engineer UR6n Stock, City Attorney Jim Reents, City Housing Director FROM: RE: DATE: Sunny Vann, Planning Office Murphy Subdivision Exemption December 17, 1979 Attached please find application for subdivi,sion 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. ---;;:::> I 7P 1/1 & /Y}o ~ ~~/~ . NOTE: There is an obscure regulation in the City Code (Section 24-l2.6(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. ,.-, -- MEMORANDU~l TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer Ron Stock, City Attorney Jim Reents, City Housing Director DATE: Sunny Vann, Planning Office ~ , Murphy SUbdivision~~~~ December 17, 1979 FROM: RE: 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 is an obscure regulation in the City Code (Section 24-l2.6(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 Hagmall""aw LId Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Calc ,",,) 81611 303 925 2867 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. , wi 11 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" .w lid Architects ~, City of Aspen - Planning & Zoning Commission Re: C. F. Murphy Associates, Inc. 12 Oecember 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, JJC/g At tachmen t -Lll ~ - 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 1979 at 8:00 A.M. day of November A.D. STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. B EXHIBIT A Parcell: 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, TIOS, RS5W, 6th P.M. (a 1954 Brass Cap); thence N64014'17"W 904.35 ft. to the southwesterly corner of Block 90, Hallam's Addition; thence NS9052'W 13.50 ft. along the northerly line of Gillespie Avenue to the point of beginning; thence NOOo3S'W 120.01 ft.; thence NS9052'W 59.90 ft.; thence SOOOOS'W 20.00 ft. to the northeasterly corner of Lot 6, Block 91, Hallam's Addition; thence NS9052'W 57.50 ft.; thence SOOo08'W 100.00 ft. to the northerly line of Gillespie Avenue; thence S89052'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 N64014'17"W 904.35 ft. to the southwesterly corner of Block 90, Hallam's Addition; thence NS9052'W 75.00 ft. to the southeasterly corner of Lot 6, Block 91, Hallam's Addition; thence NOOoOS'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 NS9052'W 57.50 ft.; thence NOOo08'E 20.00 ft.; thence SS9052'E 57.50 ft.; thence SOOoOS'W 20.00 ft. to the point of beginning.