The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Meadows Lot2.1995 90AAOOFTFlUSTEeS ~ESTEAE,ANOfRSON CHAIA/MN ACleERTHI\I1TH PflWDENT NOa A. CONGDON CHAIRMAN.f=i-ECT MICHAELAGOLDBEFlG ~TR&.SURER (",MERBIEPAYNc ,"""- THOMASM'JDEA$ON NA~NEASIN EDWAROBERKEll:Y PAULABEFlNSTEIN CAAL6ICKl':FlT MATTHEWSUCK$BAUM WILJJAME.8URWELL MERi.EC,CHAMeERS FRANKUNA, CI-IANEN PAULAH,CROWN MICKAELCZAJKQWSKI AlFREDJ,OJETSCH MI\RTINFLliG ROSEMAAYFlJAMAN ~GBm.ER HOWARDL,GOrn.IEB AUDReY GREENBERG JONA.'fHANrlAAS ;QANW,IiARRIS LITAWARNERfiEU..ER I.INDAVlTTIHEF!SST JANE JENKINS PAU!.t(AN'T"()R GalRIKARE1SKY SliSANO,KJf'Il< CAROlANNKOPf JAMESB,KUATZ ROOERTAMAYNARD JANE MOl' A.MICI-1ARMURRAY JAMESR,PATTON SHAFlIJ.PRESS lOUI$FlANGEA KURTSA.SSMANNSKAUS AI.HIE,SCwNAml JOYCESOMPl..E MASMlISHIGETA GEORGE SHIRlEY R(rAS!.OAN lARRYJ.SMITfoI G8)RGETSONTAKI$ JOAOIJINVAWEPENAS OiONNISYALlGIiN DAVlDS,WlLSON HONOFIARY~ DOROTHYDEU\V GOADONHAFtOY PRSSlDENT~ERlT()S r"'" IlZHAK PERLMAN \ 'PINCHASZl)I<(ERMMJ UFEmUSTI;E$ COliR~DTD.BARNES FR<llRICABEI'IEDICT MARIAN LYETH OAYIS JEANNE JAFFEE MRS. JOHI>I F. MERRIAM W,FOliDSCHUMANN NANCY MOAGAN SMrrH AOSAMQN06,STANTON MAS,HENAYL,STEIN EOOAA6,STEAN,JA. JOI-iNN.STEAN MliS. EOWAROC. SWIiENEY NAl1ONALADvlSORYIilOARD MAfTHEW6UCKSBAUM PRCSlDfNT R06ERTO.ANO~RSON ISAAC AANOLO.JR. MERCEOEST,6ASS SANDRAK,81SHOP.. ANNS,8OWERS 6ET$YCHAFflN JOI-iNOEIWER M,JOANFAFlVER ANNHELO SH~I.DONFRIEDSTEIN GIOEONI. OAATNER GOAOONP,GmY SANDRA GODFREY GERAl..OGREENWAUl ELLENJ,HOCKAOAY DEOORAJ-lHOFFMAN MARYANN HYDE TINA CI1EN JOSEF'HSON LEONAAOLAUD!:FI ROBERT S. MCNAMARA F,MEADME'TCAlF OIANEMILLER ELlZA6ETHMUSSeR MURRAY NEWMAN W11.1.1,wA.NIiZE LYNOAPALE\JSKY IT2HMPERI.MAN "I.OYDO.SCl-IERMER AlBEI1TH.SMALL IAN WATSON A,I.ORNEWelL ~L.ESLlEWE><:NER ,. "\ MARTHA YOCUM , MOFITlMERZuCKE~MAN ,o(lMINISTRATlON I'OOEl1THAATH PRESIDENTANO CHlfFE<ECUTlV~OFFJCCR LAWREI'ICEFOSTER MU$ICDJRECTOFi r-: ~ . ASPEN MV!FESTIVAL AND SCHOOL January 3, 1995 :Mr. Stan Clauson Planning Director, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear :Mr. Clauson: I Mite to you on behalf of the Music Associates of Aspen, owner of Lot 2, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area. My letter is to confirm that the Institute consents to the request filed by Charles :Marqusee, Helga :Marqusee, H. and C. :Marqusee Inc. to merge OUtlot B, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area with other parcels owned by these parties. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Harth President and CEO " 2 Music School Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Phone 303~925.3254 Fax: 303;925.3802 MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN, ING~ ~ r-. r- ~ r>. JanuaryPD., 1995 Mr. Stan Clauson Planning Director, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Clauson: I am writing to you on behalf of the Aspen Center for Physics, owner of Lot 3, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area. My letter is to confirm that the Center consents to the request filed by Charles Marqusee, Helga Marqusee and H. and C. Marqusee Inc. to merge Outlot B, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area with other parcels owned by these parties. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely yours, CS-\ /"""", /"""", /"""", .,,-..,. /"""", David T. McLaughlin Chairman of the Board December 5,1994 Stan Clauson Planning Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Clauson: I am writing to you on behalf of The Aspen Institute, owner of Lot 1 and Lot lA, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area. My letter is to confirm that the Institute consents to the request filed by Charles Marqusee, Helga Marqusee, and H. and C. Marqusee Inc. to merge Outlot B, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area with other parcels owned by these parties. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, ~ David T. McLaughlin IE I 3 !994 Administrative Center: P.O. Box 222, 2010 Carmichael Road, Queenstown, MD 21658 (410) 820-5426 . FAX (410) 827-9182 Headquarters: 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 1070, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 736-5840. FAX (202) 467-0790 Aspen Meadows: National Seminar Center, 1000 North Third Street, Aspen, co 81611 . (303) 544-7900. FAX (303) 925-4188 .1"""", 1""""\' i ." ~,.~.~ t"""" April 12, .1994 Mr. Joe Wells ' Land Planning & Design 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 II ASPEN. PITKIN PLANNING & ZONi~G DEf'ARTMENT RE: Marqusee parcel Dear Joe: , I first want to apologize for the late response to your letters regarding the Marqusee parcel. I have spent considerable time researching the Land Use Code in an attempt to outline your options regarding this parcel. As you have :described in your letters, the northernmost parcel of 4,959 sq. ft. is presently owned by H&C Marqusee, Inc. The southernmost parcel of approximately 3,500' sq. ft. is presently owned by Ch;;\rles Marqusee individually. The northern parcel is o~tlot B of the Aspen Meadows SPA/Subdivision and was exchanged by the Aspen Institute for the Marqusee land I needed for the'New Meadows Road right-of-way. The owners would like to merge the two parcels an~ 'eliminate the r-. boundary between the two parcels, while placing the parcels under one ownership. It is my understanding that H&C Marqusee, Inc. is prepared to preserve, the northern parcel in open space uses and does not claim any FAR credit for this lot. Mr. Marqusee would like to build a small single-family residential unit and ADU on the southern parcel which would be in compliance with the. FAR.' restrictions for that parcel. In your ,'letter of January 25', 1994, you fowarded' a subdivision' Exemption request for a Lot Line Adjustment, at the Planning Office's suggestion. After review of the Land Use Code; I do not believe that we can pursue this option. The northermost 'parcel is within the Meadows subdivision and in." order to legally merge the two parcels, an amendment to the Meadows Subdivision would be required. This would require the approval of the other Meadow user groups (MAA, Institute, Physics Institute, Savanah etc.) to accomplish this. Another option' would be ,for Charlie to pursue full subdivision and combine the northernmost parcel with the southernmost' parcel into a legally described parcel. This also would require the approval of the Meadows user groups. . ,...., The last option available for Charlie. is to pursue a variance from the Board of Ajdustment regarding the setback requirements. I have discussed this issue with Leslie Lamont and Kim .:;rolmson and the Planning Department would support you if you pursue the variance. 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5090 . FAX 303.920.5197 Priotl'<lQ"I'l'<yd<.<lP.lp<' -' ~ ~ ~. I"""" r---. i' I am aware that a similar request was denied in 1988 by the Board of Adjustment but I believe the circumstances and hardship (parcel configuration created .by the New Meadows Road) are warranted in this situation. Additionally, the variance requ~st is technical in nat~re in that the northermost . parcel would be vacant and physically provide the required setback area outlined in the zoning regulations. The variance request is required only because the parcels are not merged, otherwise, the setbacks would be met. I would assume that Charlie is prepared to preserve the northernmost parcel as open space and not claim credit for FAR. I hope that this letter is helpful to you and please contact Kim Johnson if you intend to pursue any of the options outlined. SiQcerely, ~~m~ Diane Moore City Planning Director CC: Leslie Lamont Kim Johnson Bill Drueding f" HI! !Hj ,,' Ill, 'Ill \J, H~ 'h, ".1 lb 1.1t Iii .I( ~fP' !W1 ~ ~Ir ~ !i ~ ~ ('. iI ., ~: .. I ...,lo......_.. ~~:;;ii: ~-:~~~* . . ; ('. . "1 a .-.-. -~-- , \ \. _:. ,;;?, / ,I ~ \' ~~ d,,~?"',J~r A)".1"};:;[~" .00- ~~ ..L/~ ,il \' ~{"~~'" ___..1.J. ~.v \. :z:/ ' ~.., "'~ #'.~~\\\ ' ..A"^ . .f '\' \, aT" "I- - -., "'... \ . , \ .''-I-O'IE\ (- \ \ ~ \ \, ... \ \ -'i~= .-"_. ; 7T); . ii ., 'i't i~ J.\QU')(3 ,,-, 1""'\ ~ ~ 6 () / z o ;;0 --I --..-----~.--~ .,-/ % / / ,. STREET ...!i:>...... ! i , > ~ I /-~--\ ~ g ~ ~ ' 3: ):- "0 0 "'T1 ):- ;;0 m ):- --I 0 ~ ... ~ a .. 0 .. ~ m 0 ~ " fip g !i,,~, ~ ~ ...~-' :: .~ . '. ~ l~ i ------------. STREET I l '~ -. ... 51 ;; > , l ~l : ". ~: ~~ . , , , l -.~-- ,e I . . ~ f. -:/,'-7_ ~.::::-" /',;::-.......'- , /. /f -=/ /1 l: IB./ DO DO DO cO [UL i~ J~DD DD~Dmlr ' · i !--~ ; __ ..J ~ ~ ~ r I Qc7 . h1 1 ~- ~~ I ~ 1~~! ~~:s; .~ ,1 ~+- ~- ._.~ I " ~j '-loooI , o ~ , '( ~ ,,. ~,( 0.0 '.' i ~ ( >"" ~ ~ ,~ 0) '.0,: 0)'( ,~,~1~ ~ y~ r" ..",0 V~ "'~ '.'ll :~>- ,-.., .f:-. ..c: ~ Q,) E ~ ~ "0 .a.J ...... ..... s ..... ......J ..c: tiS s:; ~ JY ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ .~ ~ "0' & ~ ~ o "0' C'O ~ ~ 2 ~ 'Z\ /"""-' I~ , I '. ~ , ... i r -- -~ Q) 0-< Q) C/l C/lO ::iO 0-<1..(} I-<M CiS >-. ~- Q) C/l..... Q,) CiS -6 1-<..... CiS X ...r::o U I-< c.. c.. < ~ li.uM JOltttt. !:: Q) p.. < ..... o ~ ..... u ~ ~ '..J ra ..0 .... <:I.i (f) -..:l <:I.i "l o c... o t .~ o ~ ~.- .- ......, ,i ;,,' #"" .:.;.,:..........". ~ .. ..,.-- ~. ~ u ~~z 01< . ,~~, l'4:~":' I ~<PV-;!D5t ~" . ~o~'b """".;.~ " ...50";" ~ ,.~' e ,c' .' 0\0.1 I I 1 ro., ~ ~ '-loooI o ~ ~ .~ ~- G:s::?" ..--- ~- ~ ! I I _1 , I .-' (""". I"" ('\ v, :.0 tll 0i ., ,...., , "Ii Gi ::c " ): ~~, ./ ;;;;" o-L9 ,~ 1,/ , "y :,,', 'O:;,?:?: """'''!l'b''"' "oS,- !j (t: )<?Q1q / H ,; <;) ~1Ol,~ I"" ~ '- .~"-,. ',- () 4, o '" -". o o ""- '" 2C J.=, 0; bb~~:~f\O ~'............., _ ~N ll'Vd:;::T '~'" 0i0) '- -Lor-~ -Y00",~ q;; ~~ '? IU 7- (ca 101 1m) ~ 0- r- .J () ~ '" " '" w <. Q Q( G '" (I) $: 8 ~ C/ / \f) -;;: Q W <( \lJ Y Cl '" Cl 1~ \Jl \II. // ~ Im@~)[w)jl OCT,2 21993 '\ eM i 'V ~~-rEY'S .:. ~.. ..-.----;>;; ( .~;. . ......_....._~.:......-.' AJ~ ~tJ.R'1 ~ \,p{ ~ \ h) ~. ~JlA C)lA/\ r-.. .r-.. Joseph Wells i\ Ji> (1)' {Yv-- ., Joseph Wells. AICP Land Planning and Design September 28, 1993 Ms. Diane Moore Director Aspen, Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Diane: I am writing to you regarding two small contiguous parcels in the West End which are bordered by four street rights-of-way - Old Meadows Road, New Meadows Road, Eighth Street and North Street. These parcels are technically in separate ownership, which may have a bearing in resolving a couple of issues which have come up. 1"""'. The northernmost parcel of 4,959 sq.ft. is presently owned by H&C Marqusee, Inc. The southernmost parcel of approximately 3,500 sq.ft. is presently owned by Charles Marqusee individually. The northern parcel is Outlot B of the Aspen Meadows SPA/Subdivision and was exchanged by the Aspen Institute -;, for the Marqusee land needed for the New Meadows Road right-of-way. . The corporation is prepared to preserve the northern parcel in open space ...),'fj'"?uses and does not claim any FAR credit for this lot. Charlie wishes to build a . . small single-family residential unit and an accessory dwelling unit on the southern parcel which would be in compliance with the FAR restrictions for that parcel. r--.. - .-/ There are two issues which must be resolved. The first is the fact that because the two parcels are presently under separate ownership, they have not merged into a single parcel. The owners would like to merge the two parcels and eliminate the boundary between the two parcels, while placing both parcels under one ownership. In light of the absence of any controversial issues, it may be possible to accomplish this as an insubstantial amendment to an approved plat (the Aspen Meadows Plat), which may be authorized by the planning director. Insubstantial amendments may be approved if they constitute a minor change to a plat which the planning director believes has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat. Obviously, this ./ ,~4; 1. X l\o\p.,J P "-' \ ;, \ 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303l 925'8080 Facsimile (303l 925.8275 /7/1,.. -lJ.YYf''"..- / ;7/L f1 ';;,1 - I..O;L C. ! -/0 /ftU!/(;r:/ 'j /'/ /.{I~1 / ,1""...\ ,'-" f""'. Ms. Diane Moore September 9, 1993 Page two would not be an acceptable solution to the Marqusees if the City takes the position that such an action would cause the then merged parcel to come under the provisions of the Aspen Meadows approval. I am suggesting this approach because it appears to me to be the simplest way to eliminate the present boundary between the two parcels. If the City would take the position that such an approach would result in the application of the conditions applied to the Meadows or if you cannot make the required finding, it appears to me that it will be necessary to request a subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment under See. 7-1003 (A)(l). This section provides for the "adjustment" of a lot line between contiguous lots which are under separate ownership if all of the following conditions are met: VO r-. tJO q. "a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and b. Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the application; and c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship; and d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot; and 1\ e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. " I believe that the City should be able to find that the request is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels, is to address the specific hardship of the setback which would otherwise be required from the northern boundary of the small southern parcel, will not increase the nonconformity of the parcels (since they will be merged) and will not affect the development rights or permitted density or create a new lot for resale. r-. / / ~ .~. ~ Ms. Diane Moore September 9, 1993 Page three Clearly, both owners will consent to the application, so the City should be able to make all of the necessary findings. The second issue has to do with establishing setbacks for the property. The definition for yard in Sec. 3-107 includes a provision for corner lots: "On a lot which is bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have the choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard, such yard to meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that zone district. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third (1/3) of the required front yard setback distance for the zone district. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alignment of neighboring lots regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by the owner." ~ Because these provisions for corner lots were intended to assure that both yards of a corner lot which front on streets would have a greater setback then the typical side yard, it should not be necessary to apply such restrictions to the yards facing the Eighth Street and North Street rights-of-way, which are not in use as City streets. City staff previously observed that these two rights- of-way are not needed for future access when their vacation was being discussed. You may recall that the applicants for the vacation request deleted the western portion of North Street as well as the dead-end section of Eighth Street from their request, presumably to enhance their chance of securing the vacation of the North Street vacation which they were concerned with, even though staff memos favored vacating the remainder. Because of the unusual shape of the lot, the most flexibility in the design of the building is achieved if the yard facing the North Street right-of-way is defined as the front yard and Old Meadows Road is considered the side yard of a corner lot. This is the preference of the owners, as provided for by the code definition above. The setback from the New Meadows Road right-of way will vary from 20.5 feet and 32 feet regardless, because the building will not encroach onto the north parcel. Old Meadows Road was previously designated as the side yard for the three detached single-family houses to the west, with North Street specified as the front yard in that case. The east yard would be a standard side yard. 1""".. In the past, there has been some confusion about the intended location of the boundary between R-6 and R-15 in this area; in this case, the zone district which applies only affects the setbacks which are applicable. However, Charlie has said he can live with the setbacks for R-15 if you can agree with ~ .~. f"'""'.. Ms. Diane Moore September 9, 1993 Page four our request regarding designating the south yard as the front yard. This would establish a minimum setback of 25 feet from the North Street right-of way, 20.5 feet to 32 feet from the New Meadows Road right-of way, 16.7 feet from the Old Meadows Road right-of-way and 10 feet from the Eighth Street right-of way. Please let me know if you can sign off on these two issues. Sincerely, Joseph Wells, AICP ~. ".-., , 1""". ~ I""" Joseph Wells OCT - g :993 -..........--.-------< Joseph Wel~, A1CP Land Planning and Design October 9,1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Kim: As you requested, I am forwarding a copy of the Statutory Warranty Deed for the two parcels (Parcel A is that portion of Lots G & H , Block 1 lying easterly of Meadows Road and Parcel B is Lots A through G, Block 7 and an unlettered parcel of land to the east, all within the townsite) which Charles Marqusee purchased from the Paepcke Trust in 1976, as well as a copy of the quit claim deed under which the Trust released certain private restrictions which were placed on the property under the original deed. I""" To restate some of the history regarding the two parcels, Mr. Marqusee requested a ten foot side yard variance on North Street and a fifteen foot front yard variance on Eighth Street for a corner lot for Parcel B in 1986. The City granted the side yard variance and allowed the Applicant to use Seventh Street as the front yard for the parcel ( Case 86-19 ). In 1987, the City issued a building permit for the presently existing single-family residence on Parcel B, in conformance with the approved variance. The calculations of the dimensional requirements to be applied to the parcel in the building permit application considered only Parcel B as it was then configured. In 1988, the City also considered a setback variance request for Parcel A (Case 88-4). Although the request was denied, the application was nonetheless accepted and processed by the City, recognizing the fact that Parcel A is a discrete parcel. Please let me know if you need additional information in order to respond to the two interpretations requested in my September 28 letter. I""" ,,---SiRferely,, /' '" ".--. "'7, I \ ' '" /;1;' "-, ,.r>- / ~ ~ <'/'5 p ,f .~{c:-'~,_."..,' / - .,,,-~-.....><_..~#:.... ,.::.- // // /' ./Joseph Wells, AICP V """"'''''_0_,,_ 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone G03) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 ~ ,-",. ~ MESSAGE DISPLAY 1""0 Kim Johnson BC John Worcester From: John Worcester Postmark: oct18,93 10:31 AM Subject: Forwarded: Joe Well's Marquesee question ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments: From John Worcester: As you can read, this one's for me. Come on down when you get a chance. Previous comments: From Jed Caswall: You might as well talk to Kim about this. Message: From Kim Johnson: After our last discussion about whether or not Charlie can do a lot line adjustment or subdivision to connect his two lots, Joe Wells has provided copies of a warranty deed and quit claim deed for the lots. Jed, you'll need to look this info over because I'm not sure what I'm looking for as far as legal documents go. WheneVer we see you after your Denver trip, let's figure this out. Thanks. I"" -------========x========------- I"" .. r'" / ~. ~, , "'~'\ Joseph Wells JAN 2 1 1984 Joseph Wells, AlCP Land Planning and Design January 25, 1994 Ms. Diane Moore Director Aspen, Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Diane: " At the Planning Office's suggestion, I am forwarding a Subdivision Exemption request for a Lot Line Adjustment under the provisions of Sec. 7- 1003 (A)(1) (as amended under Ordinance 13/1993) for two contiguous parcels in the West End which are bordered by four City street rights-of-way - Old Meadows Road, New Meadows Road, Eighth Street and North Street. The northernmost parcel of 4,959 sq.ft. is presently owned by H&C Marqusee, Inc. The southernmost parcel of approximately 3,500 sq.ft. is presently owned by Charles Marqusee individually. The northern parcel is Outlot B of the Aspen Meadows SPA/Subdivision and was exchanged by the Aspen Institute for the Marqusee land needed for the New Meadows Road right-of-way. The owners would like to merge the two parcels and eliminate the boundary between the two parcels, while placing both parcels under one ownership. H&C Marqusee, Inc. is prepared to preserve the northern parcel in open space uses and does not claim any FAR credit for this lot. Mr. Marqusee wishes to build a small single-family residential unit and an accessory dwelling unit on the southern parcel which would be in compliance with the FAR restrictions for that parcel. Sec. 7-1003 (A)(1) of the Code provides for the adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if five conditions are met. Those conditions and the owner's responses are as follows: " a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels. The request is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels. \., 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (J031 925.8080 FacsimIle (303) 925.8275 ,-.. .r". r-... .'-' r", , Ms. Diane Moore January 25, 1994 Page two b. Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the application. Letters of consent from the owners of the two parcels are attached. c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship. The application is being filed to address the specific hardship of the setback which would otherwise be required from the northern boundary of the southernmost of the two parcels. If a setback were necessary along this present boundary, the parcel would be virtually unusable. d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot; and The two parcels are existing nonconforming lots. The proposed adjustment will not increase the nonconformity of the parcels. On the contrary, since the two lots will be merged, one nonconforming parcel will be eliminated and the nonconformity of the other lot will be lessened. e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. The proposed adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density or create a new lot for resale. Two lots are being reconfigured into a single ownership. ~ A second issue which we still need to resolve has to do with establishing setbacks for the property. Because of the unusual shape of the (merged) lot, the most flexibility in the design of the building can be achieved if the yard facing the North Street right-of-way is defined as the front yard and Old Meadows Road is considered the side yard of a corner lot. This is the preference of the owners, as provided for by the code definition in Sec. 3-10t for yard (when corner lots are involved): ~ ,.-", ~ Ms. Diane Moore January 25, 1994 Page three "On a lot which is bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have the choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard, such yard to meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that zone district. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third (1/3) of the required front yard setback distance for the zone district. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alignment of neighboring lots regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by the owner." ~. Because these provisions for corner lots were intended to assure that both yards of a corner lot which front on streets would have a greater setback than the typical side yard, it should not be necessary to apply such restrictions to the yards facing the Eighth Street and North Street rights-of-way, which are not in use as City streets. City staff previously observed that these two rights- of-way are not needed for future access when a vacation of these rights-of-way was being discussed by the City. You may recall that the applicants for the vacation request deleted the western portion of North Street as well as the dead-end section of Eighth Street from their request, presumably to enhance their chance of securing the vacation of the eastern portion of North Street which they were seeking. Staff memos favored vacating all of the rights-of- way in the original request. In further support of the owners' preference, it may be worth noting that the setback from the New Meadows Road right-of way will vary from 20.5 feet to 32 feet regardless of which yard is interpreted as the front yard, because the building will not encroach onto the land included within the northern parcel. Also, Old Meadows Road has previously been interpreted by the City as the side yard for the three detached single-family houses to the west, with North Street specified as the front yard in that case. The remaining yard (the east yard) of the merged parcel would be a standard side yard. This would establish minimum setbacks around the parcel of 25 feet from the North Street right-of way, 20.5 feet to 32 feet from the New Meadows Road right-of way, 16.7 feet from the Old Meadows Road right-of- way and 10 feet from the Eighth Street right-of way. Please let me know if we can resolve these two issues or if you need additional information to make a decision. ,.-", ("" r". ~. ~ Il . , ,. GARfRJElLD & JHlIECJHlT, r.c. RONALD GARFIELD' ANDREW V. HECHT" ROBERT E. KENDIG MICHAEL J. HERRON"''''''' ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 PATRICK D. McALLISTER"'''''''''' JO ANNA GODDARD "'alsoadmittedto New York Bar ..Ii< also admitted to District of Columbia Bar ,...* alsoadmitredtn FloridaBlll" ...... also admitted to Pennsylvania Bar and NewJerseyBa:r January 25, 1994 Ms. Diane Moore Director Aspen, Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Diane: I am writing to you on behalf of H&G Marqusee, Inc., owner of a parcel of approximately 4,959 sq.ft. My letter is to confirm that the corporation has requested that Joseph Wells submit on its behalf the attached land-use application for Lot Line Adjustment review by the City Planning Director. Both Joe and I will represent the corporation during the review of this application. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me on behalf of the corporation. Sincerely, "- _._.._-~.=~ - Andrew V. Hecht, as attorney-in-fact for H&G Marqusee, Inc. ~. ~ > , CT'!"" OF ASPEN Date: Apcellant: ~ - March 23, 1988 Case No. : Charles B. Marqusee Address: .,/0 Eol1and & Har~ 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. Stree1 (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 9f CASE NO.: 0'. THE BOARD WILL RETURN' THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF-~ROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS .. ":.. ~'" , ,~, ".1- '.- Please refer. to the Variance Request anti Justification for Variance attached hereto. r" '. " .'.= .Is Will you be represented~by counsel? 'Yes -x No Charl:s )fl Marqusey "I:;.: BY:P /d'~4._~~ / (Applicant I s Signature) Charles T. Brandt, Attorney for Charles B. Marqusee c===============================-~==a========================== PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING TH~ BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWi'.RD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUST~.ENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRAllTING: '" \0' . ...., ,..; ."'!oo . .. ..';. ". ':.",: ~ Status , PERMIT REJECTED, DATE APPLIG\TION fILED MAILED Signed DECISION DATE Of HEl>lUNG SECRETARY DATE ~. .~ r-. MARQUSEE VARIANCE REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR VARIANCE variance Reauest. 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." r-. 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. r-. ~. ~R'-.U~-- 'HARL"S :.. '..: ":';:"c r '.__ C LJRAWER X 80CA RATON. ,)00828 W NORTH CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN BLK: 7 ?ARCEL 8K: 0317 8K: 0507 REVIEW # LOT:A8CDE 'A PG:0935 DOC DATE: ?G:0468 DOC DATE: 163-1976, 1991 SINGLE ?AM. RES. - LAND ACT: SINGLE ?AM RES-IMPROVEM ACT: FGHI .~ FL 3.3431 001 001028 STATUS:A 0735 121 13 007 DOC TYPE: DOC TYPE: 487500 ASO: 161710 ASD: TOTAL VALUE YEAR BUILT 87 ADJUSTED YEAR BUILT 87 ASSESSED !)7/16i93 LST CHANGE 04/27/93 r ~. SALES ?RICE: SALES i'RICE: 62690 AC: 20800 AC: 0.000 SF: 0.000 SF: $83,490 $0 $0 7875 1996 ,-,. ,~ ~ r'. \ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APRIL 14. 1988 ,-, . ) r) 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 '88-4 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 l. As the application states the zoning is R-15. The lot area is some 2,093 sqft. It is obviously well less than the 15,000 sqft which is the lot size in the R-15 zoning. We have a non-conforming lot. However we have a legal lot. What we propose is. a small dwelling which contains 2,086 sq~t ona building ~_tpdnt of 821.. sqft and the dwelling will con;oFiiC"tqi-~, the,:R...l~,:~~t::P~~~s on 3 sides. l?ut,.it,doesr~,qUit.~+9F".+-1:,~lL~.;;" onW'hCl,E':"'1!~,..:.J~~,1l~,.llec9ndary front yard whJ.ch is thetinopene!i" porti()n}~fS:th 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 100 ft--these lots don't have the depth of 100 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. ,--,.. . ') ,--,.) ,--,. .. , ) ,--,. ."-'. 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. '..Efilt when you get to these town site lots that is included with the R-15 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 ~oned R-15 and all of those were 15,000 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 t~e buildable area. Remo: The FAR allowed is 2,074 sqft? It says buildable are 587 sqft FAR allowed 2593 divided by 100 times 80 equals 2074 sqft. That is your allowable FAR square footage. Ana the one you are asking for now is 10 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 I 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 10 feet into the 16 ft 8 inch secondary front yard. . He then showed the site plan and floor plans to the Board. 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-15 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 ~ ,-." I"" BAM4/14/88 structure is to apply for this variance. The granting of the variance will not adversely effect the general purpose of the ~omprehensive 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. . I"" . ) 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-15 yard requirements. The westerly side yard require in R-15 is going to be changed from 5 to 10 feet. So my dilemma is not to waste your time and corne 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? ,""""') 3 ~,~ r- ) ,-,) ,..... ,,-, BAM4/H/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 btilization 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 is 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 dr i veway there on City right-of-way, that would be all right by us. ' Remo: What about planti:ng 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 1"""\ .1"""\ ~ BAM4/14/88 ) 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 passi veuse 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. 1"""'. ) 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. 1"""') 5 r"\ r"\ I"" BAM4/14/88 r"\ . . ) 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 ...gorth 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 variance 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 t~day 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 12 years. 6 ~ ~ ) ~) 1"""\ .1"""\ 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 1. 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 pr ice 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. 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-15 zone in a manner which will increase the side yard setbacks from the 5 ft minimum to 10 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 10 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 the 1987 taxes on Lots A through I amount to a staggering $84.10. 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 7 I"" ~) ~.. ) ~.. .r-, BAM4/14/88 with his eyes open. We feel that the footprint of the residence proposed for Lots G and H has indicated on the plans prepared by Ted Mularz presents no hardship situation to be remedied by the '.'S'oard 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 var iance. 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 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, 521 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 12 years arid 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. r feel that the city should remain vigilant in protecting its B. ~ 1"") r:j ~. r~' BAM4/l4/88 public lands and enforcing all existing zoning regulations of record. . I absolutely object to this variance." -Anne: Wheno~you-designate your front yard, 'can yourrear--'yard Q,e tg..the 'side?' .......~.d'.;~ .,~,..~..,' - '''.-::"',:,'_:',':- "'''''~-''~''--' is establish~4;. Remo: Wh@n~~u,;l?iSk<,~J1I:..~r:ont th~n'everything ~-~.~;,,..>~,,-,.~.. Remo then closed the public hearing. Anne: I am opposed to this var iance. 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-15. 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 variance. 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 build on them and to me it is so. far a substandard lot compared to the 15,000 sqft. The other one was half what was required and we granted that. This is 1/8th 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' I"'"" "'j I"'"" ) 1"'"") 1"""'\ ~. BAM4/14/88 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 structure~ 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 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 ~aterson, yes, Remo Lavag~ino, yes. Variance was denied. Ron: On Case #85-19, 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 thell\ to build and also granted them a var iance saying that they could build 4 2-bedroom units. 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 I t look like there 10