HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-02-06RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 6, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch,
and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant
Vice-Chair Lynch; Members Dill, Levine, and Sager; Alternate Member
Grant
Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer
Chair Newsom, Director Joseph
Vice-Chair Lynch 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.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
The minutes of the December 5, 2006 meeting.
it was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the minutes of the December
5, 2006 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting, and the motion passed
unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
LOT 5, AMENDED PLAT OF CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION, 1505 FISH CREEK ROAD,
Applicant: Raymond and Shara Davies — Request for a post-construction variance
from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E.2 and Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to
allow the maximum height of a residence to exceed the allowable height by 3.42
feet.
Member Levine recused himself from participation on this agenda item due to his status as
de facto Homeowners Association president and due to ex parte communication he
received regarding this request.
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from the
building height limitations found in Estes Valley Development Code sections 1.9.E.2 and
Table 4-2 to allow the height of a newly constructed residence to remain 3.43 feet in
excess of the maximum allowable slope-adjusted height limit of thirty-seven feet. Approval
of this post-construction variance request would allow the applicant to avoid destruction of
the existing roof structure and construction of a new roof design.
The residence was built farther up the slope than was shown on the approved site plan.
Building permit approval required verification of the building location and height; this
requirement was not met. During a pre-construction meeting with Chief Building Official
Will Birchfield in June 2005, the applicants were informed of the need for height verification
at the footing-and-foundation stage; this requirement was not met. In reviewing the building
permit application, planning staff made a mathematical error in the height calculation. The
height calculation was also based on the applicant’s site plan, which was not followed.
During a building inspection in November 2005, building department personnel discovered
the building exceeded the maximum allowable height. A stop order was not issued at that
time. The applicants were advised to consider “hipping” the roof and were allowed to
proceed with construction at their own risk.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ■III
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment ^
February 6, 2007
In considering whether special circumstances exist, it is planning staff’s opinion that
although the lot is sloped, this is a self-imposed hardship because a code-compliant
structure could easily have been designed for the site. The height regulation was in place
at the time the design of the home was commenced. Changes to the Estes Valley
Development Code were adopted several years ago to provide for slope-adjusted building
height limits to accommodate structures built on slopes; few height variance requests have
been requested since the adoption of these changes. Approval of the proposed height
variance would have minor impact on the character of the neighborhood. Beneficial use °|
the property may continue without approval of a variance. It is planning staff s opinion that
the requested variance is substantial because it exceeds the height allowed by existing
language in the development code that provides a slope-adjusted height limit.
This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring
property owners for consideration and comment. No significant lssues or concerns were
expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of
public services. Comments were received from one neighbor who is concerned about the
precedent approval of this request would set. Letters in support of the reclf s^ were signed
by William and Margaret Henderson of 1488 Creekside Court and Edmond Baisley of 149
Creekside Court.
Planning staff would support a modified request to limit the demolition of the exist,ag "e to S an exSng load-bearing point; however.
not represent the least deviation from the regulations that would afford relief. Planning statt
recommends denial of the request.
Public Comment:
Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Tf aPnfie4n,in0rrgPardSto their
applicants. He requested clarification s ® ^ findlnqs’l2 - 14 and explained that
relevance to this variance request Ra . . jtems jn order to approve any variance
the Board of Adiustment ntust find toese Z PPsidence from two
request. Mr. Sheldon distributed residence would be altered if a portion of
different angles and how the aPP®^06 °< the steep slope and a drainage
the roof line was lowered. He stated tne to « . . . ilci the house; the Town
easement on the lot left a sma .bu' dt';^ ^nfashPon and it would be a hardship on the
did not catch the heipM errot in re'queLd variance is only 9.2% of the
in place to prevent an error iihe this from
Discussion followed a™ng Ihe Boato “®|];beas[lePgM crrfiffcate'unm^^
summarized as follows; Town sfaff did noueqmre o) up tQ 1Q% for se,g ck
essentially complete; planning Jg the height limit due to e^aPng EVDC
requirements but cannot ?rant any variances to iyed (hat an e| g^tome
allowance for slope adiustment the appucant w did not ask fo the
waTrequired prior to placing the ‘"p" m ^
Levine abstaining.
4. REPORTS
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 6, 2007
There being no further business, Vice-Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:47 a.m.
Julie' Roederer, Recording Sejzretary