Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.8thMeadowsRd.004-88 ~. , CITY OF ASPEN .. , 'Date: Appellant: March 23, 1988 Case No. : Charles B. Marqusee Address: €/o Holland & Hart Phone: 925-3476 same as appellant Address: 600 East Main street Owner: Aspen, Colorado 81611 Location of Property: Lots G and H, Block 1, city and Townsite of Aspen, Between 8th St. and Meadows Rd., north of-North-Street (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany-this application, and will be made part of CASE NO.: .'- THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. . DESCRIPTION OF-PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS ..,...-....., '...,J..... please refer to the Variance Request anti Justification for variance attached hereto. . .. .'-~ Will you be represented~by counsel? Charl~s }::9 Marquse~. .1 By:C/~J:.R"~ /' (Applicant's Signature) Charles T. Brandt, Attorney for Charles B. Marqusee .~ <Yes -x No -....... ==~~=~=================================-- - - - - _.__ - ._._._ ___.__..'._n__ _, ._.... ..--._.__ .--- HARQUSEE VARIANCE REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR VARIANCE Variance Request. Charlie and Helga Marqusee are the owners of fractional Lots G and H, Block 1, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (the "Property"). The Property is zoned R-15. The lot area of the fractional lot is 2,593 square feet. It is considerably less than the minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet allowed in the zone district for a single family dwelling. Thus, the property is nonconforming as to area. Pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 24-13.6, Nonconforming lots of record, Aspen Municipal Code, a single family dwelling may be constructed on "any single lot of record" provided the lot (here the two fractional lots) fails to meet the requirements for area or width. Under Subsection (a) (2) of this Section, "yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area... of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which the lot is located. Variances of yard requirements shall be obtained only through action of the board of adjustment." A modest dwelling is proposed containing 2,086 square feet on a building foot print of 821 square feet. The dwelling will conform to the R-15 setbacks on three (3) sides, but requires a 10 foot variance along the unopened portion of Eighth Street. The square footage of the variance area is approximately 299 square feet. Justification for Variance. The two (2) fractional lots as created are about one-half of the usual depth of a standard size townsite lot of 100 feet. This substandard situation was made worse in 1955 when Walter Paepcke conveyed to the City of Aspen the 45 foot strip over Lots E, F, G, and H providing a right-of-way for Meadows Road. Thus, the size and shape of the Property present special conditions and circumstances justifying the issuance of a variance in order that the property can be effectively utilized for a single family dwelling. o RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APRIL 14, 1988 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Answering roll call were Remo Erickson and Charlie Paterson. Francis Whitaker were excused. Lavagnino, Anne Austin, Ron Josephine Mann, Rick Head and CASE 188-4 CHARLES MAROUSEE Remo read variance requested. (attached in records) Chuck Brandt representing applicant turned in the affidavit of posting and notice. The Marqusees are the owners of 2 fractional lots in block 1. As the application states the zoning is R-l5. The lot area is some 2,093 sqft. It is obviously well less than the l5,000 sqft which is the lot size in the R-15 zoning. We have a non-conforming lot. However we have a legal lot. What ,~,;Jl:\ we propose is a small dwelling which contains 2,086 sqft on a '<..02;;' building footpr int of 821 sqft and the dwelling will conform to the R-15 setbacks on 3 sides. But it does require 10 ft variance on what we call secondary front yard which is the unopened portion of 8th street. The square footage of the building envelope of the area that we are requesting the variance fOr is just about 300 sqft. The justification for the variance is that we have 2 fractional lots which were created by the way--having approximately 1/2 of the usual depth of the standard townsite lot of lOO ft--these lots don't have the depth of lOO ft. They have something in the nature of approaChing 50 ft. The substandard situation was made worse in 1955 when Walter paepke conveyed to the City of Aspen the 45 ft strip over Lots E, F, G and H is at a diagonal so it effected all 4 of these lots providing the Meadows right of way to the City of Aspen. Thus the size and the shape of the property presents special conditions and special circumstances justifying the issuance of a variance in order that the property can be effectively utilized for a single family dwelling. Chuck then showed members of the Board an aerial view of the property and photos of different views of the site to better acquaint them with the property. J . BAM4/14/88 The Marqusees and their architect spent a lot of time trying to figure out what would be the best configuration on a very difficult lot. All of the townsite lots have been zoned R-6. But when you get to these town si te lots that is included with the R-l5 zoning. So the first thing that the Marqusees did was to assume that the property was zoned like the other townsite lots--R-6. We had argued the last time that the zoning of these individual townsite lots was a mistake in 1974 because in 1974 it was the Paepke Subdivision that had been zoned R-l5 and all of those were l5,000 sqft lots. But even if you go through the exercise of assuming that it is R-6, we still need the same variance that we are asking for today. So even if we were the conditional townsite lot zoning we would be here this afternoon. The next consideration was without a variance what would be needed--what could be built on the property? What you end up with is a buildable area of 587 sqft footprint. Remo: As opposed to an 800 sqft footprint. You are not giving us the square footage of the whole area? Chuck: Just the buildable area. ~ Remo: The FAR allowed is 2,074 sqft? It says buildable are 587 sqft FAR allowed 2593 divided by lOO times 80 equals 2074 sqft. That is your allowable FAR square footage. And the one you are asking for now is lO feet less. Is that right? Chuck: Yes. The point is without a variance we have one side of the buildable area--it would be difficult to build a 1 car garage because of that depth and so you have an oddly configured and quite small buildable area. Hence the request fOr the variance today asking to go lO feet into the l6 ft 8 inch secondary front yard. He then showed the site plan and flOOr plans to the Board. J Here we have fractional lots created by the initial townsite map and made worse when the Paepkes granted the City of Aspen right- of-way to widen the road. The R-l5 zoning here is really more applicable to the large lots of different size and different shape which are to the north of this property. Here the substantial property right in oUr view is the right to build a house consisting more Or less of usual dimensions. It is our contention that because of the unusual shape that the size of the lot really is not a consideration because it is a legal lot. Legally these rights have been denied the owner because of the unusual shape of the lot. The only way to build a reasonable 2 BAM4/ l4/ 88 structure is to apply for this variance. The granting of the variance will not adversely effect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan and it is oUr thought that given the R-6 zoning within the area this setback that we request is the one variance in compliance with the other 3 yard areas. The existence of the unopened streets, the distance from the existing residences, the open space to the north--that the impact of this variance will be minimal. Some of the neighbors have been concerned and have expressed concerns to me of a second structure being built by the Marqusees. We were here a year and a half ago fOr a variance on Block 7 and they built a home which they had intended at that time to be utilized by their family members and by guests. The reasons for the change are really many. The primary reason is a financial reason. They have decided that they would prefer to sell that house which they have just completed. They did not build it for sale. The quality of that house speaks to that. There has been a change in their thinking and more importantly in some of their financial considerations. The house proposed on the property before you this afternoon is because they have decided to have a smaller house. C) Since the Marqusees won't build on this property until the guest house sells which will be well in excess of 30 days. Ted Mularz, the architect hasn't done working drawings so he is not prepared to make application fOr a building permit. Under the new City code there is a change in the R-l5 yard requirements. The westerly side yard require in R-l5 is going to be changed from 5 to lO feet. So my dilemma is not to waste your time and come back in 40 days and ask for another variance for that side yard but to present the issue tonight and see if there is a solution that we can agree upon. Remo then informed the applicant that there were just 4 members of the Board present that they would need the afirmative vote of all in order to get approval of this variance and that they have the option of asking for tabling at this time if they wish to do so. Remo: You have on this drawing a driveway going right aCross what appears to be 8th Street and you also have another driveway on what appears to be North Street. Is this a vacated street? Chuck: No. They are unopened but legally existing. Remo: What is this driveway here? J 3 l} - ) BAM4/14/88 Chuck: It is the means of access that was' built. The driveway was constructed to the Marqusee guest house from those roads. So this exists. And rather than to have another access to just use that existing driveway to come into this proposed house. It is a utilization of the public street which is unopened. Remo: Did I see a whole bunch of new plantings here on a berm? It is on North Street. Chuck: It is adjacent to the Marqusee property. Ron: I felt the same thing. It looked like the street between the 2 houses is now a private garden. Chuck: It is a private garden that is on a public street. Should the City ever wish to open that-- Remo: Isn't this fenced off--this public property from the Marqusee's house? Chuck: I don't believe it is fenced. Remo: Yea. There is a little garden that is fenced. Just so we clarify that and then I want the opportunity for the Engineering Department later to overview that file on what it considers the use of this land. It appears like it is being used privately. Elyse:, The Marqusees in 1983 asked for a vacation of the land that ~s now landscaped. It is City right-of-way and they asked that the City vacate that for their purposes. The City contends that they did not want to do that because they are not sure where the access to the Meadows property will be and right now we are not sUre how that is all going to be accessed. But definitely 8th Street, North Street and Meadows are a way of doing it. However right now we are leaning toward 7th Street. But the City has in 1983 taken the position that we don't want to vacate that property--that it is still City right-of-way even though it is kind of being used as a private landscaping. As far as using the driveway there on City right-of-way, that would be all right by us. Remo: What about planting of trees--they are very big--those Blue Spruces--on berms. plus there is a portion in here that is actually fenced off that is on City street property? Does the City condone this? Elyse: of-way. ago. We do not allow landscaping like that on the City right- I would assume that it is something that happened years 4 J t~:.;:' ~" '. J . BAM4/l4/88 Remo: It is a fresh berm. There is not even any sod put on it. Elyse: Then whoever put it there should have gone through the City to get an encroachment application and be granted permission to landscape it. Remo: The reason I am asking is that it really has a bearing on your request for variance. If this street is effectively not being used that we are talking about, we are concerned about traffic here. There are other aspects of granting a variance that we have to consider. How much traffic is going to go through here? Is it going to be impeded by this passive use here? It would at least effect me in determining whether I would grant you a variance. Since no other cars would come into it effectively because it is a dead end street here that it would seem a reasonable use of that land. But if your are doing this thing--all of this stuff going on on North Street which is without City approval then I would be--I am questioning the effect of blocking off that street that adjacent property owners have used. Chuck: I know there has been discussion between the Marqusees and various City officials following the denial of the street vacation. Remo: They not only have it on NOrth Street, but 8th Street too. They have cut a triangle on 8th Street and there is also some new trees planted there where it now actually follows Meadows Road on the angle. It doesn't continue straight through as this plan goes but really kind of makes the tUrn onto Meadows Road long before 8th Street is concluded. There are a lot of trees there and effectively what they are doing is-- Ted: The Marqusees have done this landscaping with City permission. I am positive of that. I don't have any documents to show you but I do know that there has to be some written agreement. There is a water main that runs right under the trees that were planted. The vacation wasn't successful. The City didn't want to do it because of the question as to how the Meadows property would be accessed. But they gave them permission to landscape. It was a mess before. It was just like an alley and it wasn't maintained or taken care of. The marqusees wanted to go ahead and improve the neighborhood. Consequently they did. If the City came to them tomorrOW and said "We have got to open NOrth street, they also understand that the trees would be leveled, the curbs, gutters would be put in and the street would come through. 5 .I ,cc:", "<J J BAM4/ l4/ 88 Chuck: When they were contemplating the landscaping one of the problems that Jim Markalunas had that there was a fire hydrant in the area that they wanted to landscape in the unopened portion of North Street. And Charlie, at his expense relocated this fire hydrant down to this corner of his lot and the Fire Marshal said this is much better location for it because it now permits us to go directly down the alley. Ted: That is a strange area over there because the people are really using the alley as the access street. The alley south of North Street is being used to access. Chuck: A couple of months ago Marqusee told City Council he would give whatever right-of-way they would like to have into the Meadows property to continue 7th Street north and the City Council said yes to this and to leave Engineering to decide whether it would be 30 ft Or up to 60 ft. Remo: This lot was split in 1955. My point is that when the Marqusees purchased this property in 1976 the R-l5 zoning was in effect. It seems to me that you don't purchase a piece of property with known building code on it and then ask for a var iance because the size and shape doesn't conform to the City lot and use that as a justification fOr granting a variance. You know what you have got when you purchase the property. And now you are telling me that you have a hardship because of the size and nature of the lot. It existed when you bought it. What can you tell us that makes it more unique than what it was when you bought it and you knew what it was like at that time. Chuck: Nothing has changed on the lot and I think on any other var iance that you granted when you found a hardship of special conditions and circumstances that they existed at the time the lot was acquired. PUBLIC HEARING Remo opened the public portion of the meeting for comments from the public. Don Erdman, 915 North Street: I am an immediate neighbor. I am here representing not only myself and my wife but also LOrenzo and Joyce Semple who can't be here today but who authorized me to speak today on his behalf. I am sOrry to have to be up here today because the Marqusees are very good friends, neighbors and excellent residents of the communi ty. I am sorry they are not here but I feel obliged to speak. They have been friends and neighbors fOr the past l2 years. 6 BAM4/14/88 In 1986 they asked us to lend support to their application for a variance to allow construction of a small studio on Lot A through I of Block 7. Said blocks being adjacent to their principle residence and also adjacent to Lots G and H Block l. The studio was to serve 2 purposes. A space fOr Helga's art projects and a residence for their visiting children and grandchildren. We know how close the Marqusees are to their family and we supported their efforts to expand their building. In February of this year, 2 months after its completion we were shocked and dismayed by the studio being on the market with a price tag of $745,000. The discovery was even more upsetting because the neighbors were not informed of the fact that the Marqusees had decided to sell. Had we been personally informed of what we hear of their new financial problems we would perhaps have mOre sympathy for this sudden reversal of purpose. After all the small studio turned out to be 2,200 sqft, 3 bedrooms and baths, full kitchen, 500 sqft garage. We knew all along that the studio was, in fact, a full fledged single family dwelling on a conforming lot and the owners are certainly free to sell at any time they please. [:t';,', I'r.~ .,:.. Now the Marqusees wish to develop another single family dwelling called a studio on what appears to be a legal residential lot. While they are certainly within their rights to build on this site, we object strenuously to granting them any variance which would increase the size of the building envelope. As we are all aware the City of Aspen has recently amended the zoning ordinance effecting the R-l5 zone in a manner which will increase the side yard setbacks from the 5 ft minimum to lO ft. The appellant is requesting not only to be allowed to maintain the 5 ft side yards but also to decrease the required front yard by an additional lO ft over what is currently allowed. Even though Charlie Marqusee is a good friend and citizen we must not overlook the fact that he is a far more experienced developer than the infamous Mohammed Hadid having developed the town of Boca Raton, Florida. This is to say that Charlie knows his way around City Hall as can be attested by the fact that thel987 taxes on Lots A through I amount to a staggering $84.l0. This is fact. Both these lots and the lots upon which Mr. Marqusee intends to build another 3-bedroom, 3-bath house were acquired from the City of Aspen presumably at a favorable price I believe. As Mayor stirling remarked at the Council meeting last Monday-- he--Hadid, is an experienced developer and he bought into this 'J 7 BAM4/l4/88 ) with his eyes open. We feel that the footprint of the re'sidence proposed for Lots G and H has indicated on the plans prepared by Ted Mularz presents no hardship situation to be remedied by the Board of Adjustment but which if approved by the Board will redefine the meaning of the word hardship. There was no guarantee made by the City at any time that such a residence could ever be built on these lots. Ken Woodward, representing the Aspen Institute as an adjacent property owner: The Institute is opposed to the granting of this variance. We feel that Mr. Marqusee knew the size of the lots when he bought them. Also Mr. James pavisha and I met with Mr. Marqusee prior to the building of the guest house Or children's house. At that time Mr. Marqusee said he intended that that would be the only building site with a house on the property and that he was going to landscape the rest of it as he knew at some time the adjacent property would be developed. I realize he can sell it off and the new owners could do what they want to do with it. But that was his intention at that time and Mr. Pavisha and I felt that the house where it was located was fine with the landscaping. But he did not guarantee that he would not develop the rest of the property. We feel that the granting of the setback--that there is not hardship fOr him. He f", know what the property was at that time of the development. I ',-,~ don't know what Mr. Marqusee' s position is now but he has 2 houses on the property and that was the intent. Cynda Erdman: I would like to say I request that you tUrn this down as I request you turn down anything of this sOrt in town. I am a long-time resident of Aspen and I care very deeply for Aspen. I think this is exactly the kind of thing that is happening that we need to put a stop to. Chip Danine, 52l North 7th Street, Lots G, H & I at 7th and North: I live in the home of Lucy Hibbard. He read a letter from Ms. Hibbard as follows: "I received notice of public hearing on this application and because I am unable to attend the public meeting I am writing to express my objection to this request by Mr. Marqusee for a variance. I have lived at 7th Street and North Avenue Lots G, H & I, Block 8 for the past l2 years and have observed Mr. Marqusee's gradual encroachment upon City property which has become mOre extensive in recent years. The effect of the extensive landscaping he has done in the middle of North Street is such that he has converted public property fOr his personal use. I feel that the City should remain vigilant in protecting its ,J 8 r) fl// 1~'>:'~, ,,), ":". BAM4/l4/88 ., \ public lands and enforcing all existing zoning regulations of record. I absolutely object to this variance." Anne: When you designate your front yard, can your rear yard be to the side? Remo: When you pick the front then everything is established. Remo then closed the public hearing. Anne: I am opposed to this variance. When we heard the last variance, we were not made aware of the fact that this was another building site that we would be asked fOr a variance later on. The Marqusees bought this in 1976 when the zoning was R-l5. They knew what they had ahead of them and if somebody bought the land tomorrow, we probably would say they knew wha t the zoning was and they couldn't get a var iance. So I see no hardship here. I am perturbed about the encroachment the Marqusees have on the City property. I am concerned about the trees there. I am very upset about the guest house that we granted a variance for which is now fOr sale. We were told at that previous meeting that the new house would be fOr the Marqusee's grown children. That is a quote from the minutes. Remo: They really have the option to do whatever they want with that land even though they said they would keep it for their children. That doesn't legally bind them to that. I don't fault them for putting it up fOr sale Or do whatever they want with it. Anne: But that is what they represented to us and I feel that we are going right back into the same situation. Also this lot is only 2,593 sqft. My understanding even in the R-6 zone is that you can' t divide a 6,000 sqft parcel into 2 lots and bui ld on them and to me it is so far a substandard lot compared to the l5,000 sqft. The other one was half what was required and we granted that. This is l/8th of what is required and I can't justify giving them a variance. Ron: I agree with Anne. Charlie: The only hardship that I can come up with is the fact that the street was deeded. But then the applicant bought the property after that period. It doesn't count as a hardship fOr his ownership. And so I wouldn't feel right about granting this variance. The property owner knew what he had and that it was a substandard lot and that he would be limited no matter what he would do with it and that would be nothing but a small building on it. 9 BAM4/l4/88 Remo: I want to make sure that even the Erdmans understand that we are here to grant relief from the strict application of the City code when applicants can show us unnecessary hardships or practical difficulties in adhering to the strict interpretation of the code Or they can show that they have a unique situation different from anyone else in the vicinity or zone that they are in. So when you say that you don't want to grant anybody any variances it is really unfair unless you see and hear each particular case and the uniqueness that they present to us. I think that it is the intention of Council to even further constrict the size of structures by increasing the setback confines and the greatest reasons for not granting this variance is that we still are not denying a property right enjoyed by others in the same vicinity and zone. They can still build on the property what they are allowed by meeting all setback requirements. That property right is yours and we are not denying you that. What we are denying you is on a basis that no practical difficulties Or unnecessary hardships have been established. So I would not be in favor of granting this variance. ('\,' Anne: If I had known back when we had the previous variance '..J request that there was this additional parcel of land, I probably ~ would have suggested that we combine the 2 into one property and that it would become one building site. MOTION Anne made a motion that this variance be denied. Charlie seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Ron Erickson, yes, Anne Austin, yes, Charlie Paterson, yes, Remo Lavagnino, yes. Variance was denied. Ron: On Case #85-l9, Hearst/Allan on Gilbert and Monarch Street that was being tOrn down and we gave them a variance to put up a 4-plex although the was substandard in the lodging zone and we allowed them to build and also granted them a variance saying that they could build 4 2-bedroom units. J On my way to work every day I notice that the retaining walls are 3 ft from the street. In my files he has curb, space, sidewalk then setbacks from the property line. He had overhanging balconies that were OK. We gave him a lot of things and it looks like that is not what he is building. It doesn't look like there lO " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case 88-4 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meetinq: Date: April l4, 1988 Time: 4:00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Charles B. Marqusee Address: c/o Holland & Hart 600 East Main st. Location or description of property: Charles Marqusee Location: Lots G & H, Block l, City and Townsite of Aspen Between 8th St. and Meadows Rd., north of North Street Variance Reguested: Property is located in the R-l5 zoning category Sec 24-3.4 area & bulk setback front 25 feet, side 5 feet, rear lO ft. Sec 24-3.7 corner lots. On a lot bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard. Such yard to meet minimum setback fOr a front yard in that distr ict. The remaining yard border ing a street may be reduced by one third of the required front yard setback distance fOr the district. Variance requested "is a lO ft remaining front yard to 6 ft 8" instead of l6 ft 8". Will applicant be represented bv counsel: Yes: X Ro: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment l30 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk ...i............._~ HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER DENVER TECH CENTER COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN BILLINGS BOISE CHEYENNE WASHINGTON, D.C. 600 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8\61\ TELEPHONE (303) 925.-3476 Tl'LECOPIER (303) 925-9367 March 28, 1988 CHARLES T. BRANDT HAND DELIVERY City and County Building Department 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 816ll Re: Marqusee Variance--City of Aspen Gentlemen: Accompanying this letter are the following items relating to a variance requested by Charles Marqusee: 1. Completed City of Aspen Appellant Application; 2. Eight (8) copies of the site plan showing the property, the proposed two story dwelling and the set- backs (including the setback for which the variance is requested) ; 3. A complete list of neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the Marqusees; 4. Stamped, addressed envelopes to be used for sending the notice to the neighboring property owners; and 5. Our check for $10.00 payable to the City of Aspen. Please let me know the date when the Board of Adjustment hearing is set. Thank you. of:very )rU1Y~YOUrs, _ /) /, ,- a/ ' /~4-{/ .1,/3-- Charles T. Brandt for HOLLAND & HART CTB/sg Enclosure cc: Mr. & Mrs. Charles B. Marqusee (w/enc) Mr. Theodore Mularz (w/enc) .. , r CITY OP ASPEN Date: Appellant: March 23, 1988 Case No. : Charles B. Marqusee Address: €/o Holland & Hart Phone: 925-3476 same as appellant Address: 600 East Main Street Owner: Aspen, Colorado 8161l Location of Property: Lots G and H, Block 1, City and Townsite of Aspen, Between 8th St. and Meadows Rd., north of'- North- street (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany,tbis application, and will be made part 9f CASE NO.: .'- THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. . DESCRIPTION OF-PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS ..,..-......, ""'J."-. Please re=er to the Variance Request anti Justification for variance attached hereto. '. -. Will you be represented~by counsel? Charl~s )!:f7 Marquse~ .01 BY:('7 ~Lf__- ./ (Applicant's Signature) Charles T. Brandt, Attorney for Charles B. Marqusee ,~ <Yes -x No -....... =================================s============================= PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING TEE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWI'.RD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTl''.ENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRAllTING: ". ...11> ...,~ . _ oJ. ."f :'.. ,...: ~ Status PERMIT REJECTED, DATE APPLIG'T!ON FILED MAILED Signed DECISION DATE OF HE.\RING SECRETA..~Y DATE - - - - - - --' _.- ------ ,----- _. - .... . ..--.-- ._- --.-. -. -".-. ---.-. ._- . HARQUSEE VARIANCE REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR VARIANCE Variance Request. Charlie and Helga Marqusee are the owners of fractional Lots G and H, Block 1, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (the "Property"). The Property is zoned R-15. The lot area of the fractional lot is 2,593 square feet. It is considerably less than the minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet allowed in the zone district for a single family dwelling. Thus, the property is nonconforming as to area. Pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 24-13.6, Nonconforming lots of record, Aspen Municipal Code, a single family dwelling may be constructed on "any single lot of record" provided the lot (here the two fractional lots) fails to meet the requirements for area or width. Under Subsection (a) (2) of this Section, "yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area... of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which the lot is located. Variances of yard requirements shall be obtained only through action of the board of adjustment." , A modest dwelling is proposed containing 2,086 square feet on a building foot print of 821 square feet. The dwelling will conform to the R-15 setbacks on three (3) sides, but requires a 10 foot variance along the unopened portion of Eighth Street. The square footage of the variance area is approximately 299 square feet. Justification for Variance. The two (2) fractional lots as created are about one-half of the usual depth of a standard size townsite lot of 100 feet. This substandard situation was made worse in 1955 when Walter Paepcke conveyed to the City of Aspen the 45 foot strip over Lots E, F, G, and H providing a right-of-way for Meadows Road. Thus, the size and shape of the Property present special conditions and circumstances justifying the issuance of a variance in order that the property can be effectively utilized for a single family dwelling. Lucy Reed Hibberd 521 N. 7th Street Aspen, CO 81611 April 12, 1988 Mr. Rerro Iavagnino, Chairman City of Aspen Board of Adjustments 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Iavagnino: I received notice of a public hearing for case # 88-4, to be held on April 14, at 4:00 p.m. Because I am unable to attend the meeting I am writing to express my objection to this request by Mr. Marqusee for a variance. I have lived at 7th Street and North Avenue, Lots GHI Block 8 for the past 12 years and have observed Mr. Maqusee's gradual encroachment upon City property, which has become rrore extensive in recent years. The effect of the extensive landscaping he has done in the middle of North Street is such that he has converted public property for his personal use. I feel that the City should remain vigilant in protecting its Public Lands and enforcing all existing zoning regulations as written. I absolutely object to this application for variance. Thank you. Doremus & company 608 east hyman avenue. aspen. colorado 81611 . telephone: (303) 925-6866 March 8, 1988 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Board Members, We have received notice of Charles B. Marqusee's request for a variance allowing a setback on lots G & H, block 1. He has our full support and, having seen the plans, we look forward to having the new building in the neighborhood. / f{~ .~-.... ,"', DONNELLEY ERDMAN 915 NORTH STREET, ASPEN. CO. 81611 April 14, 1988 To: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Re: Application for Variance of Charles Marqusee Charlie and Helga Marqusee have been friends and neighbors for the past 12 years. In 1986 they asked us to lend support to their application for a front yard variance, to allow construction of a small studio on Lots A thru I of Block 7, said lots being adjacent to their principal residence, and also adjacent to Lots G & H, Block 1. in the City of Aspen. The studio was to serve two purposes - a space for Helga's art projects and as a residence for the Marqusee's visiting children and grandchildren. We know how close the Marquesees are to their family, and we supported their efforts to expand the building envelope, as the new dwelling certainly was not a speculative project. In February of this year, two months after its completion, we were shocked and dismayed to find the "studio" on the market, with a price tag of $745,0001 The discovery was even more upsetting because the neighbors were not informed of the fact that the Marqusees had decided to sell, prior to the appearance of two brokers' FOR SALE signs on Meadows Road. Had we been personally informed of what we hear are their "new financial problems", we would have, perhaps, had more sympathy for this sudden reversal of purpose. After all, the small studio turned out to be a 2,200 square foot residence with 3 bedrooms and baths, a full kitchen and a 500 square foot garage, We knew all along that the "studio" was in fact a full- fledged single-family residence on a conforming lot, and the owners are certainly free to sell it at any time they please. Now the Marqusees wish to develop another single-family dwelling on what appears to be a legal residential Jot. While it is certainly within their rights to build upon this site, we object strenuously to the granting of any variance which will increase the size of the building envelope, As we are all aware, the City of Aspen has recently amended the Zoning Ordinance, r "'" ~" affecting the R-l 5 zone in a manner which increases side yard setbacks from a 5-foot minimum to 10 feet. The appellant is requesting not only that he be allowed to maintain the 5 foot side yards, but also to decrease the required front yard by an additional 10 feet over what is presently allowed! Even though Charlie Marqusee is a good friend and citizen, we must not overlook the fact that he is a far more elperienced developer than the infamous Mohammad Hadid, having developed the town of Baca Raton, in Florida. This is to say that Charlie knows his way around City Hall, as can be attested by the fact that the 1987 tales on the lots upon which the present "studio" now sits amounted to a staggering $84.10. Both these lots and the lots upon which Mr. Marqusee intends to build another 3-bedroom, 3-bath house were acquired from the City of Aspen, presumably at a favorable price. As Mayor Stirling remarked at the Council meeting last Monday, "he (Hadid) is an elperienced developer, and he bought into this with his eyes open," We feel that the footprint of the residence proposed for Lots G & H, Block 7, as indicated on the plans prepared by Ted Mularz, presents not a hardship situation, to be remedied by the Board of Adjustment, but rather a "crap-shoot", which, if approved by the Board, will re-define the meaning of the word "hardship", as there was no guarantee made by the City that such a residence could ever be built on these lots. Lorenzo Semple, Jr., who resides at 905 North Street (directly across 8th Steet from the Marqusee's principal residence), has asked us to convey to the Board of Adjustment his sentiments against the granting of this variance, as he is presently teaching a course at N. Y. University, and has not had sufficient time to respond in writing to the notice, which he and his wife only recently received. Mr. Semple wishes to inform the Board that he speaks for both himself and his wife, Joyce, in this matter. Respectfully, G~ Donnelley an da Erdman ~~~ .~..,..I~ Belton Fleisher 75 E. Oodridge St. Columbus, OH 43202-2640 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street. Aspen, CO B1 611 To the Board of Adjustment: RE: Request for variance by Charles B. Marqusee c/o Holland & Hart Lots G & H, Block 1, City and Townsite of Aspen Between Bth ST. and Meadows Rd., north of North Street We support this request and urge the Board of Adjustment to grant the variance requested. (f2-ttLLLt.i-':'" ~ ~ (jC'<-q( ) Yours truly, r1 77i/ ' /Jj [' (i'""J/fl !,,--<l./ J r 1f. 10 Ii' ,)m/)/~.. 117J~'('JO PI!>fl State of Colorado ) ) ss. ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to Section 2-22(c) of the Municipal Code) County of pitkin The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: 1. I, Thomas J. Todd, of Holland & Hart, attorneys repre- senting an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjust- ment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 4th day of April, 1988, to the 14th day of April, 1988. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). "'j?, J toe By: / J 1:9 . _ ~ ..... - .. Thomas J. T a Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of April, 1988, by Thomas J. Todd. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. commission expires:"~u~S~J~J~l ~ /I\~ d3.'~ i LflXl~ , Y$...j- (1;iPL;~ Notary Public ' ..',' ".' --..... ;}(~~};~, \': " -j;,~..,: --- ~ ' -. , , - ~ "\ LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS The following is a current list (as of February 15, 1988) of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of Lots G and H, Block 1, City and Townsite of Aspen, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Roll and from the Colorado Secretary of State's Corporations and Limited Partnerships Regis- tration Records. NAME AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Charles Marqusee Post Office Box 10610 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I Block 7 Charles B. Marqusee Helga Marqusee Post Office Box 10610 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lots A, B Block 8 Charles B. Marqusee Helga Marqusee Post Office Box 10610 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lots G, H Block 1 Robert W. Pullen Anne W. Pullen 701 North Post Oak Road Suite l20 Houston, Texas 77024 Lots C and D Block 8 Jack A. Titus 2817 Maple Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 Lots E and F Block 8 Lucy Reed Hibberd 1937 East Alameda Avenue Denver, Colorado 80209 LBH Association Condos Units A and B, and the Condominium Association Fredrik Zachariasen Nancy W. Zachariasen 2235 Villa Heights Road Pasadena, California 91107 Lots K and L Block 8 ".." John Doremus 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Belton Fleisher Elizabeth Fleisher 75 Dodbridge Street Columbus, Ohio 43202 Senior/Hallam Joint Venture c/o william R. Jordan, III Austin & Jordan 600 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Center for Physics Post Office Box 1208 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Donnelly Erdman Cinda W. Erdman 915 West North Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 and to Post Office Box 10640 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Irving B. Harris 209 East Lake Shore Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 and to 925 West North Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lorenzo Semple, Jr. Joyce M. Semple c/o Robert Ross 2200 North Central Road Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024 and to 905 West North Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 John Schumacher, Jr. Marianne H. Schumacher Post Office Box 3528 Aspen, Colorado 81612 -2- ~ Unit A Treehouse Condominium Unit B Treehouse Condominium Metes and Bounds and Property in Conflict Metes and Bounds Tract 2 West Solar Subdivision Tract 1 West Solar Subdivision Tract 3 West Solar Subdivision Lots Q, R, S Block 2 - Nancy E. Hill (formerly Nancy E. Vandemoer) Marion M. Vandemoer 644 Glencoe Street Denver, Colorado 80220 Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P Block 2 David Menscher 5150 Hidalgo Suite #1801 Houston, Texas 77056 Lot 1 Janss Subdivision Larry J. Hoffman 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Lot 2 Janss Subdivision Arnold Gachman and Harriette Gachman, Co-Trustees UTA 1229 Shady Oaks Lane Fort Worth, Texas 76107 Lots A, B, C, D, E, F Block 1 Treehouse Condominium Association c/o James H. Winzenberg 3201 South Tamarac Drive Suite 202 Denver, Colorado 80231 Common Area Treehouse Condominiums Vincent P. Gallaccio Post Office Box 8065 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 1 Tent Condominiums Vincent P. Gallaccio Post Office Box 8065 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 2 Tent Condominiums Charles and Ann Knight 201 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots Rand S Block 8 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Street 81611 Metes and Bounds and Property in Conflict Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies Metes and Bounds c/o Robert O. Anderson Center 1000 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 -3- -- James D. Stout 17992 Cowan Irvine, California 92714 Irene R. Tagert Post Office Box 438 Aspen, Colorado 81612 and to 930 West Smuggler Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Savannah Limited Partnership c/o Julie Mackay 1225 17th Street Suite 2300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Savannah Limited Partnership 1300 North 17th Street Suite 1100 Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 -4- Metes and Bounds Metes and Bounds Meadows Meadows '" N N ~ ( )> N t/-OG'<l)'Il ---1 (l .1~"''''''''~-- Q'10l! I .......... I I .s..-"-- "- ..........- .s----- '. --~ ../ . " <D ,,; " "" _----"fIIII' (II .,~~ , ; --, ' ................... ....................--.... ' - fT1 \j r . ~, .. :z ~ J: (J) ... :~,'-" (f) ITl fTl (J) " :t> 1 ----, G> ? r '" <JI -:9. '" '" . {) r T1 T1 ~ ::. ..... ~ ~ -' 12 " ,4 ,& 17 " ,9 .0 :xl ~ 01 , 9 .~ 0" ,.' :'.. \:o.Iit. ': '\' - ' ~. J - " " " . ~ ,/.. " l~ _. - ~,... '114' ,..,:, I" ',' - .,:;.r ~ . t-~, ~"q" t .' . .; - .~ .... ", ~ ~ .. f'.~ ~ ,~ -:l k ~' , ~I l.L.'" _ \-......--." . -....... .... _.......~ ~... It-'''' ~.' ._...~.~--,. Ir.,' '.....".~IfIF'(;....:::.....T'~ -."'.......- ~ .... '.... '" .