Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930513 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1993 4:00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #91-7 EDWIN PHELPS AND LINDA MCFARLIN VERIFICATION III. ADJOURN WNW U RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1993 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Rick Head, Ron Erickson and Charlie Paterson, Remo Lavagnino was excused. CASE #91-7 PHELPS/MCFARLIN VERIFICATION Chuck Brandt, attorney representing applicant: I am here with Bill Campbell the architect for the applicant. What I would like to do is refresh your minds on what the plan showed back in October of 1981 when you approved the variance which was approved unanimously by the Board. The house is a single family dwelling located between 2 duplex condominiums and what used to be known as the Whitcomb duplex. The initial variance request was a situation where there was an existing structure there. And the initial proposal was to keep that structure in place, remodel it and add to it. It was a non- conforming structure and we were asking for a side yard setback and a rear yard setback. We had a non-conformity in the front and there was an encroachment onto the Whitcomb duplex property. And you just didn't like it. It didn't work well for you. So we came back a week later with the drawings that I have just handed out. The lot runs down to the Roaring Fork River. Then using drawings and elevations Brandt gave a background on this application. The variance granted was for a 240 square foot variance on the 8 foot rear yard setback request as proposed in a set of plans presented by the applicant. Those modified plans were submitted by Bill Campbell and the Building permit issued. Bill had had a couple of meetings with Bill Drueding and went through the changes. Bill 's initial indication was that he didn't have a problem with the modifications because they were all within the 240 square foot variance area. Leslie Lamont, on the other hand, thought that because of the change with respect to the hot tub and the patio that the owners should go back through an Insubstantial Amendment Stream Margin Review. That application has been submitted and is in process. I think both Francis and Bill felt uncomfortable looking at the changes that are within the variance and are saying "Since your variance was tied to the set of plans it would be a better BAM5. 13 .93 procedure to come back to you and say "Does the concept of your approval work with these changes" . Brandt presented a summary of square footages and differences between the first architect and the present architect. (attached in record) The difference in the allowable FAR is explained by the fact that we were working with a lot size of 3 , 100 square feet. The property was resurveyed and found it to be 3, 186 square feet. So there is an additional 86 square feet of land area that could be utilized for FAR. It doesn't accommodate for all of the increase of 125 and 1/2 feet. It justifies part of that. If you look back at the first drawings of what you approved the footprint of the building is a "V" shape on the river side. That has been eliminated. So the current drawings on the lower level just run the wall straight across. That explains for a little bit of the square footage increase in the house. With respect to the second level are the 2 balconies. Those balconies were eliminated and what Bill Campbell proposed to do is he eliminated these 2 balconies and cantilevered out the ground level, street level and the second floor about 3 feet. So there was some square footage picked up there--all within the 8 foot variance area. The other thing he did is he changed the roof line. Bill Campbell: Originally it had dormers. We removed the dormers on both sides. Brandt: The third area which added square footage to the house and this is outside the variance area but it is a change--the deck off the master bedroom--that is now part of the single family dwelling. That has been enclosed and it is part of the master bedroom. The principal reason why the balconies were eliminated and the house pushed 3 feet in that cantilevered fashion towards the river is because the Phelps are really not deck people. They didn't want to have to walk out onto the decks to look at the views and to look at the Roaring Fork River. What they wanted to do was to sit in the 2 living areas and be able to look through some folding doors and not through railings. Charlie read into the record a letter from Lorrie Berland Moss, neighbor to this property in support of this variance. (attached in record) Charlie then read into the record a letter from Michael Mullen, neighbor to this property stating his objections to this variance. (attached in record) 2 BAM5. 13 .93 At this point there was discussion over plans. Ron: According to the original drawings you had 2,274 square feet including 100 square feet of deck. You now have 2,400 square feet not including the deck which means you have increased the interior of the property by 230 additional square feet. Brandt: Remember part of that was outside the variance area on the upper lever because that deck here was eliminated. Rick: So the net difference is 24 square feet. The old plan was - 2 ,428 . -You have- now 2 , 452 .- - - Brandt: So the bottom line is it would be the same variance granted before. Now the question is having seen the differences in the architectural drawings--Susan Furr's- vs Bill Campbell whether this is within the parameters of something which is acceptable to what you saw before and what is proposed now. Ron: Why do you bring this to us for clarification? Drueding: Because in your minutes it says "According to plans" . This is, I feel, quite a change. If this had been built as a deck and he came back in to enclose this now, he would be increasing a non-conformity and they would have to come back to you. Charlie asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MEMBER COMMENTS Ron: Since I made the motion on the original variance on this property I made a general motion for a variance in terms of square footage based on a set of plans that were given to me at the time. Those plans represented a significant improvement over the original set of plans we had received reducing the impact on the neighborhood, on the setbacks. I think that the plans as presented to us minimized bulk on a very small lot. A big house on a small lot. So the decks were significant in that they allowed a lot of open space to be present in and around the house. It allowed the owners to have usage of those decks. - It brought in part of the lot--this extra finger going out towards the river--it allowed the owners to use some of that available lot square footage in the structure. That is one of the reasons I granted the variance on that basis. I think that since then I have been a lot tighter in terms of variance granting and in terms of square footage and how they apply to a set of plans. 3 BAM5. 13 .93 I didn't think it was necessary because we had plans. So I think it is right that we are discussing this. I don't see any problem with the neighbors on the south side. I have a problem with the neighbor on the north side because I don't understand it. I think by enclosing the deck you actually block off, providing more bulk, block off the view from that neighboring property. Looking through all these plans I have no problem with the squaring off of the floors. I have a problem with cantilevering the property because I think- it adds bulk- and I also have- a- problem with the closing of the deck off the master bedroom. Those are the only 2 aspects of the proposed changes that I have a problem with. It is hard to say but if these had been the plans originally presented to me as a second set of plans I don't know whether I could have granted them. Rick: The cantilevering increases the floor area ratio. They are not asking for an additional FAR. They are just basically asking us for what they are allowed by right. And the problem is they are not even approaching the side yard, rear yard setback. Squaring this thing off I don't have a problem with nor do I have a problem with the cantilevering. Ron: It does increase the FAR. I think that they came out 3 feet on 2 floors for the whole length of the wall. That is cubic foot measurement I don't have. That isn't as significant as closing off the deck at the master bedroom which also increases the bulk. Basically the bulkiness of this building on this lot--I liked the way it was before. It had a small house feel to it on a small lot. Rick: You have also got to consider they also removed over 500 square feet of decks. Charlie: I tend to agree with Ron that it does increase the bulk. You can look through a balcony and have the open feeling. Then if you close it up you have a different situation. In looking- at the -plan, -I -would say that it - is more -practical living space from the client's point of view. I don't like to see the bulk here on this corner. And that is the main objection of the neighbor. I can see what he is saying. He can't look back to Red Mountain as much as through the open balcony which gave him a much lighter feeling than this will do. Ron: I am willing to compromise on this. How about getting rid of the cantilever--that extra cantilever? I think this is a significant change and it is adding a lot of bulk. I remember Anne' s comment--"Doesn't anyone build small houses on small lots 4 BAM5. 13 .93 anymore?" I don't see what that cantilevering on that wall does to this building. Architecturally it gives a few more square foot which they are going to get by getting rid of the "V" in both floors. They don't get that without a variance. More discussion over plans. Charlie re-opened the public portion of the meeting. Campbell: If we turn this back into decks what have we done? Ron: It doesn't have to be decks. Campbell: It will be decks. The decks have already been approved in the other variance. Charlie: We are not going to object to this here. Campbell: This is not in the variance area anyway. MPT Campbell: Can I have a roof over the balcony? Ron: Overhang? Campbell: Yes. Charlie: I don't have any problems with that. I just feel if you can look through we have no problem. If you have got a solid wall, we have got a problem. And we have got to listen to the neighbors whether we think it is 100% right or not. We do have to take it into consideration. Bill: How about taking a foot and a half instead of three? Ron: We have had 2 meetings on this property. A lot of effort on the part of the applicant went into getting a variance as such. And I see where filling in these "Vs" makes sense from an owner point of view. Aesthetically I might not like it but aesthetics don't have anything to do with this. But you are grabbing additional footage that you can't have there. And you want me to justify it. And I can do that. But I can't justify getting rid of the decks and turning them into floor area. I just can't do it on that side. I don't like either place being closed in. Discussion over plans. 5 BAM5. 13 .93 Campbell: Can I pour the footers? Charlie: You can pour the footers but they may not be useful to put a building over. Campbell: I am not saying put a building on. I am saying-- Charlie: Sure. Just the way the drawing were originally. And then later on we can make a decision on what is going to happen to that back section. You can figure that that "V" is OK and this enclosure is OK. We are willing to do those 2 "Vs" . It is just this little area back here that are gray areas. It is better to leave it that way than to make a decision which may be adverse to your interests at this point. Campbell: If we make this compromise now, we could go ahead on that basis or we could decide to ask for a full board hearing on the whole-- Charlie: We can put that in the record. That we go compromise here or we have another hearing. Ron: I don't want you to come back for a full hearing saying that this has already been granted to you. Campbell: I would just like to see if you could explain to me the problem you are having with this bulk. Whether the wall is 3 feet back or 3 feet forward makes no difference visually on how you perceive the building from across the river which is what you are going to see. We have gone to considerable length to try and reduce and soften the rooflines. If you look at the original plans all of these had big dormers on there. And what we have done is brought the ridge back to the center of the building on all sides. It is a hip roof. We did that deliberately to soften the building. More discussion over drawings. Ron: This is the way I look at it. All the additional structure that you want to put up is in the setback. All of it. Campbell: But you have already approved things in the setback. Decks. Ron: We approved a conceptual plan based on a set of plans. It was not just lines. You' know that. You are an architect. The thing is that all of the changes you have made are in the setbacks. Campbell: Yes. 6 BAM5. 13.93 Ron: I don't see you moving the building 2 feet back. Campbell: We are actually further back now from the river than we were on the original plans. Discussion over plans. MOTION Ron: In order to reach a compromise on this clarification and to leave it as insignificant change to the original plans we are going to make a change that closes off the "V" on the 3 levels here and enclose the bedroom deck. That change to me is an insignificant change. Campbell: And we are still allowed to have decks. Ron: Well, they are on the original plans. Rick: I guess you are deck people again. Roll call vote: Bill, yes, Rick, yes, Ron, yes, Charlie, yes. Bill made a motion to adjourn meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. T'me was 5: 35 P.M. r Janice/h. Carney, City D ty Clerk 7 �7T- ,13-'/i ,Q,cw►� 70 !b s/S/V�0�/C p�✓P�� /p6-f ri��L� ��.FiN! G I� �rQ 1/71✓ ZS r . 'v o?ivD y;w kS • Rrs r#-c'i-'.S (l/'rws jOR;4 A, O u w /V-r /to rip ,Qy /?�u�� sk rZZ ,0.7rAlr-410 _ /mob/Ap 6 //1C/�//.n•�n �'�v�vv.�r- 1�7-71'-"`07X C djVI/A,/ 4^rI 04, 4v,ll -w �f. S r1?uc riwcr< F�T�.�►c��A Div �// 6 E ✓Qw p o�t�z 2'd Tp,f c r Pvt ul/ O G Jc 4ef41 .4-7!o (k. �{,�ro�•. p tx, d t 1,F u f, l/%of w.li giLltek o�iG,,,r- C.o&::r-rrwcri u,a ,3/o K/d 6c SFr F ,o .Pv .GO c.o 7,00 - ,nV 6 PCOC4 w,0,0 /yy 77�-'f�•! ' !"ry GG�i�i c a<✓ �D c a -7.0 o$0 MH'f Mb `$;S 14:bj I MLULMiC K VIJj-kk� , t1 M M_`«...r.' _.�, .._ '• i 2MMAM Me=MA iO T`r L l V�+�Iri In r N1 1 • . I 1 1 �✓W' N3d5U Ab iH S ONC"170H 1 L2:vT Eb,r 2 T AtA4 5/May/1993 William Campbell Architecht, PC 175 Big Hat Road Basalt, Colorado 81621 Re: Phelps Residence, 163 Park Avenue Dear Bill: Thanks for the- update on-the above referrenced property. We looked _ the plans over, and have no objections to any of the changes. Actually, by eliminating the balconies on the northwest corner, you have given us more privacy. Thank you for this information. Since ely yours, L RIE BERLA MOSS Park Partnership 311-315 Park Avenue Aspen, Co.