Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-06-05RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 5, 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 Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Lynch, and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Town Clerk Williamson Member Levine, Recording Secretary Roederer Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the May 1, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. LOT 6, REPLAT OF LOT 1. HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION. 675 SUMMERSET COURT, Applicant: Roger Thorp. Thorp Associates. PC — Request for variance from Estes Valiev Development Code Section 1.9.D.2.a. Stream and River Corridors: Section 7.6.E.1.aML BuUdina/Structure Setbacks: Section 7.6.F.1, Prohibited Activities: and Section 7.6.G. Preservation of Vegetation: to allow portions of a residence to be constructed across a stream corridor in lieu of the required 30-foot setback from stream corridors Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance to allow a one- story, 5,520-square-foot house (3,638 sf of finished space, a 912 sf unfinished garage, 970 sf unfinished attic, 840 sf of deck, a 130 sf patio, and a portico over the driveway of approximately 240 sf) with an intermittent drainage running through the property requiring a 30-foot setback. The petitioner is requesting variances from four sections of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow portions of a residence to be constructed across a stream corridor in lieu of the required 30-foot setback from stream corridors. This lot is almost twice the minimum size for “E” Estate zoning lots (.5 acre minimum); however, there are special circumstances on the lot including a drainage, steep slopes and a water line easement on the eastern property line which reduce the buildable area. However, staff does not find that the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty sufficient to justify the variances requested. Staff is supportive of significant reductions in setback, but not as sigriificant as those proposed by the applicant. Staff may be supportive of a building design that proposes building within a few feet of the bank and perhaps over the existing drainage channel if the portion of the structure crossing the channel is high enough to allow wildlife to pass under the structure. Staff is not supportive of the submitted design. It is the opinion of planning staff that the requested variances are substantial because the request involves reducing the setback from thirty feet to zero feet for the full length of the house, and building a deck and a portion of the house over the drainage. This request also includes reconfiguring/relocation a portion of the drainage. In considering whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining property owners would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, staff finds that the proposed house is significantly larger than all others in the neighborhood and may impact the character of the neighborhood. In considering whether the requested variances represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief, staff suggests the proposed setback from the front property line could be reduced, the driveway could be redesigned, the deck proposed over RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 5, 2007 the drainage could be removed/relocated, and/or the shape and size of the home could be redesigned. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town’s Building Department, Public Works Department, Light & Power Department, Water Department, Town Attorney White and Keith Keenan of Alpine Anglers. Written comments were received from Michael Harris a neighboring property owner. Planning staff recommends denial of the requested variance as submitted due to the failure to demonstrate practical difficulty sufficient to justify the requested variance requests. Public Comment: Mark Elrod/applicant reviewed the purchase of the lot and development of the house plans with Thorp Associates. He stated the house plans were submitted to the HOA’s architectural control committee in March of 2007 and received approval. He cited the Development Code sections in which they seek relief and quoted the Comprehensive Plan, “The land shall be developed to fit the land and maintain tree coverage and development standards should be reasonable, understandable and responsible.” Mr. Elrod questioned the map used to make staff’s determination that a drainage runs through his property. He confirmed the stream and river corridor map used in the Estes Valley Development Code was developed by the USGS in the 1970s and is static. Over the years classifications have changed; however, the maps have not been updated to reflect the changes. He stated the drainage on the property would now be classified as a wash and not a stream. He also questioned the need to preserve the riparian vegetation. His research into the definition of riparian and the flora existing within a riparian corridor concluded a lack of riparian vegetation on the property. The predominant tree species on the property is ponderosa pine, a xeric tree species. The Elrods have hired an engineering firm to determine whether or not the swale could and would handle a 100-year flood event. The home would need to be retrofitted and the swale modified to accommodate such an event; however, the intent and purpose of the code are not compromised with the requested variances. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated without the variances the property value will diminish. Mr. Elrod reviewed staff findings and disagrees with many of the findings including the home could be redesigned to fit the restrictions on the lot, redesigned to accommodate the wildlife migration, out of character with the neighborhood, significantly larger than other homes, property was not purchased with the knowledge of the code requirements, this issue can not be mitigated through other methods. He stated the design of the driveway and home has been designed to preserve as many trees as possible. Roger Thorp/Thorp Associates designed the proposed house. He stated during site visits there has been no evidence of running water through the property during the wet spring. A site analysis was developed prior to the design to maintain the trees, views and access while recognizing the setback requirements and utility easements that limit the buildable area. The scale of the proposed home is within the character of the neighborhood. To accommodate the stream corridor requirements a 2-story home would need to be built and a number of trees removed. The drainage can be modified to accommodate a 100-year event that is safe for the inhabitants and does not change the historic flow down slope. John Spooner/Van Horn Engineering reviewed the hydrology/hydraulics analysis for the property. A culvert system was originally developed. The property owners requested the swale be modified to handle a 100-year event. A fabric material would be used with native grasses that would channel the water away from the home but not change the drainage path down slope. Staff is concerned this design is not the least deviation that affords relief. Dir. Joseph stated the water flow will be concentrated and could cause drainage concerns to properties down slope. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 5, 2007 Celine LeBeauA/an Horn Engineering performed a site visit and determined the vegetation on site is predominately upland plants with a few wetland plants on the edge of the swale. The swale is entirely vegetated and does not contain wetland plants, no defined bank, no erosion and no sign of soil deposition. Mr. Baker/Property Owners Association spoke in favor of the request and does not recognize a stream on the property. Chair Newsom stated staff has followed the guidelines of the Development Code to make their determination, however, the historic swale does not show any signs of erosion. Dir. Joseph stated the upstream condition and vegetation demonstrate the legitimacy of mapping the area as a drainage. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Sager) to approve the variance requests for Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision, and the motion passed unanimousiy. 1. 2. 3. Compliance with the submitted plans, with the exception that the site plans shall be revised to: a. Accurately reflect the proposed building location. Per a conversation with Amy Plummer, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, on May 29, 2007, the field staking includes a slight shift in building alignment to better match the existing drainage swale and result in less grading than shown on Sheet A02. b. The house design shall be revised so that the no portion of the building encroaches into easements. Utility and water line easement encroachments shown. Significant modifications to design will require addition Board review. c. Show all setbacks and show them accurately. This includes showing all property lines setbacks, i.e. the fifteen-foot, rather than thirty-foot front setback, and the fifteen-foot rear and ten-foot side setbacks. A Colorado registered engineer shall stamp the drainage report and site plan. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set, and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. The plans submitted with the building permit application shall comply with the comments in Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated May 25, 2007. The plans submitted with the building permit application shall comply with the comments in Greg Sievers’ email to Alison Chilcott dated May 21,2007. Compliance with Mike Mangelsen’s memo to Bob Goehring dated May 23, 2007. Public Works Department has the ability to waive any requirements that they determine are not applicable to this project. Per the Public Works Director a drainage easement shall be recorded. 3. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 11:06 a.m. Chair ie Williamson, Town Clerk Q Q.J ^