Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2012-01-10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 10, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Bob McCreery, John Lynch, Chuck Levine, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair Newsom, Members McCreery, Smith, Lynch, Levine Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Recording Secretary Thompson, Chief Building Official Birchfield Absent: None Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were five people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the November 11, 2011 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. 321 & 325 KIOWA TRAIL, THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Marys Meadow Development (James Tawney) has requested a height variance for Units 5 & 6 at Marys Meadow Condominiums. The application was reviewed in accordance with Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff received comments from reviewing agencies and adjacent property owners. On multiple occasions staff has met with two adjacent property owners; Mr. Tom Greslin and Mr. Dave Schultz. Both expressed concerns over numerous aspects of the Marys Meadow development. Concerns include, but are not limited to, processing of staff-level minor modifications to the Marys Meadow development plan, the height of the Unit 5/6 duplex, and height of future buildings. Additionally, Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Betty Hull and Rex Poggenpohl submitted comments concerning this variance request. This was the first time staff was aware of Planning Commissioners providing written comments to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. This was prompted by public comment at Planning Commission meetings in November and December, 2011. Town Attorney White also provided written comment. In reviewing the application, staff found special circumstances or conditions that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. Director Chilcott stated building permit #9074 contained architectural elevations that demonstrated compliance with the maximum allowable height. The elevation certificate submitted March 18, 2009, at the footing and foundation stage, indicated the building would comply with the maximum building height at 28.3 feet. Following the issuance of that certificate, the building plans changed to alter the trusses. The revised building plans did not account for a 12-inch tall energy heel contained in the truss plans. The engineer that prepared the construction plans did not prepare the truss systems and may not have been aware of the energy heel. The energy heel was not a Town code requirement. The duplex was built LEED Built Green certified, and could require additional energy conservation measures such as an energy heel. Director Chilcott stated that due to ongoing neighbor concerns, an elevation certificate was requested at completion. The certificate submitted December 27, 2011 shows the high point of the roof exceeds the maximum allowable height by .9 feet. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 10, 2012 In determining practical difficulty, the Board of Adjustment should consider if there could be beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the height issue is resolved, either by approval of the variance or by lowering of the roof. In the fall of 2011, staff met the general contractor, Frank Theis, on site to discuss the issue. At that point, staff indicated there were three options: 1)Determine if it complies with the height regulations; 2)If the height does not comply with the code, a variance could be requested; or 3)If the height does not comply, the roof could be lowered to comply with the code. The applicant chose to apply for the variance. Director Chilcott stated the Board must use its best judgment in determining whether the variance request is substantial, whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjacent property owners would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Staff found the variance would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood; reducing the height would not significantly change the look of the building or off-site views. Adjacent property owners hold a different opinion. Mr. Schultz and Mr. Greslin have expressed concern to staff for many years over the height of this development. In determining practical difficulty, the height regulation was in place at the time construction began on the duplex. The applicant does have other another option to mitigate the problem rather than request a variance; the roof could be demolished and rebuilt at an allowable height. There has been ongoing discussion since September, 2011, shortly after the roof was installed. The Board shall use its best judgment in determining if the variance represents the least deviation from regulations that will afford relief. Director Chilcott explained if the Board chose to grant the variance, they could require conditions of approval. Planning Commissioner Poggenpohl provided written comment recommending additional requirements be placed on future buildings in the development. He stated industry standards have been modified in the last 50 years and it is now common practice not to check the truss fabricator’s design against the original design documents which indicate the desired height and slope. Director Chilcott stated it appears the engineer that submitted the plans did not review the truss design with the energy heel. In discussions with Chief Building Official Will Birchfield, an engineered truss system is commonly not submitted with the application for plan review. From this point forward, staff is considering requesting both footing and foundation certificates and ridgeline certificate when the height could exceed the maximum allowed. Director Chilcott stated when the original plan for units 5 and 6 was approved, it was designed to be the same height at units 7 and 8. When the design changed, the height also changed. The change in the truss caused the project to exceed the maximum allowable height. Chief Building Official Birchfield explained that trusses are designed for the structural loads for the community, e.g. wind speed, snow load, etc. Truss manufacturers are not typically concerned with development code regulations. An energy heel allows room to insulate the cold spot at the soffit in an attic, while still allowing the required ventilation space over the top of the insulation. If the roof height is raised to accept a full level of insulation, the amount of insulation can be reduced by 22%, while still allowing for an increased R-value. There was discussion among staff and the Board concerning the design change of the unit and truss system. The contractor should be aware of any changes that could alter the plans. At the permit stage the building complied with the code for building height. The neighbors brought the issue to staff in the fall of 2011, after the roof was constructed. Staff then requested a new height certificate. Staff assumes the plans will be followed. Mr. Birchfield explained it is not uncommon for the truss companies to hold stamped drawings of the truss systems until the company has been paid. The building department does not have the stamped plans in hand at the building permit stage, but reviews the engineered components in the field. The framing inspections are completed after the stamped drawings have been submitted. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 10, 2012 Member McCreery stated his disappointment with the applicant requesting a height variance after construction rather than stopping construction until the issue was resolved. He understood that the energy heel could raise the height, but thought the general contractor should have been aware of the height change. He expressed his frustration with post-construction variance requests in general, stating that at some point a request should be denied to set a precedent that post-construction variance requests would not be condoned. PUBLIC COMMENT Frank Theis/general contractor for Marys Meadow stated this was his first time before the Board of Adjustment requesting a height variance. He is a professional designer that has worked in the area for over 12 years, and admitted to making a mistake in this case. He explained the timeline of units 5 & 6 beginning with the footing and foundation certificate. Due to the downturn in the economy, there was a two-year span between the laying of the foundation and the conceptual drawings of the units. The general concept of the architectural elevations changed in 2009, and was in compliance with the height limits at that time. Neighbors requested the cupolas be removed from the design, and the developer complied and removed them. On the drawings submitted for the building permit, the elevation complied with the development code. Mr. Theis explained the reason for changing the truss system, but was unaware an energy heel would be added to comply with the LEED requirements. The new truss system changed not only the heel height, but also the ridge line and the length of the ridge. He admitted he should have questioned that change. The framing contractor reviewed the plans, and found no issues that could prevent installation. Height was not verified at that point. Staff looked at the roof in the field, and discussion occurred for several months. Mr. Theis realized he was under intense scrutiny by the neighbors, and did not intentionally violate the height regulation. He apologized to all involved, and stated this roof plan would not be used in the future. All members of the Board agreed that there needed to be accountability for height compliance and hoped similar requests would not be before the Board in the future. Contractors would want to be sure they are well under the height limit or pay close attention to the installation process if the height is close to the maximum allowed. Jim Tawney/development owner took offense to the scrutiny from the Kiowa Ridge property owners and also from Board member comments. He was disappointed the variance request had become overly complicated. He stated it was an inadvertent error, and future buildings will be well under the limit. Brian Simpson/framing contractor spoke in support of the variance. He stated the violation came strictly from the energy heel. He and Mr. Theis take pride in their work and met with the neighbors prior to construction. He wanted the Board to realize it was an oversight. Contractors are not given the liberty to change the design without passing through the building department. Plans were resubmitted after the roofing design change. Dave Schultz/adjacent property owner spoke in opposition of the variance request. He was also representing Mr. Greslin. Mr. Schultz stated Planner Shirk requested the first ridgeline certificate in August, 2011. His primary view is to the north, overlooking the development. The garages of The Meadow Condominiums and the homes completely block the view to the north. Height has always been a concern to them. This additional foot completely takes away the view of Marys Lake for Mr. Greslin. View consists of the meadow, the lake, and the mountains to the north. This development has a huge impact for them. Unit 5 is the only one that exceeds the height, and the only one he’s concerned about. Mr. Schultz asked the Board to follow the Estes Valley Development Code when reviewing the variance request. He had two arguments: the required variance notice was not posted on the property; and the applicant did not allege unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty in the statement of intent. He disputed the validity of the application. Director Chilcott stated the sign request was added specifically at the request of a former Board member for properties that are difficult to locate in the Estes Valley. While the sign may not have been posted, the surrounding neighbors were notified by mail, the application was posted on the Town website, and a legal notice was published in the local RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 January 10, 2012 newspaper. Historically, no application has been declared null and void because the notification sign was not posted. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant does not allege unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty in the statement of intent, which are part of the standards of review in Chapter 3.6 of the development code. He stated the condition was created, not pre-existing. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant’s predicament could be prevented and was strongly opposed to the approval of the variance request, based on the code. When asked by Chair Newsom if he had any solutions, Mr. Schultz stated he did not think he should remove the part of the roof at issue, but thought the applicant could be penalized in other ways. He suggested a monetary fine. Discussion occurred between staff and the Board. In conclusion, Director Chilcott stated in the future, more attention will be given to applications to ensure this issue does not arise again. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Lynch) to approve the requested variance to allow the building to remain as constructed at a height .9 feet over the maximum height allowed in the Estes Valley Development Code. The motion passed 4-1, with Member McCreery voting against the motion. 4. REPORTS Director Chilcott report this will be Member Levine’s last Board of Adjustment meeting after serving on the Board for eight years. His service and insight have been greatly appreciated and he will be missed. Director Chilcott stated on January 10, 2012, the Town Board will consider the appointment of two members to the Board of Adjustment: Jeff Moreau and Wayne Newsom have been nominated by the Mayor to serve three-year terms. 5. ELECTIONS Chair Newsom reviewed the process of alternating between Town and County for the position of Chair. John Lynch (County) was nominated for Chairman. Vote was unanimous in favor. Member Smith (Town) was nominated for Vice-Chair. Vote was unanimous in favor. The Administrative Assistant to the Community Development Department was nominated to serve as Recording Secretary for the Board. Vote was unanimous in favor. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m. ___________________________________ Wayne Newsom, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary