Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2000-11-07BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 7,2000,8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, Chief Building Official Birchfield and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the October 3,2000, meeting were accepted as presented. b. LOT 3. BLOCK 6. WiNDCLiFF ESTATES - Item continued to the December 5,2000 meeting at applicant’s request. it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to accept the Consent Agenda and it passed unanimousiy. 2. LOT 10B. BLOCK 4. WiNDCLiFF SUBDiViSiON. 5th FiLiNG. APPLiCANT: JANiCE BARNETT - HEiGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTiON 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report and read correspondence from the neighbor to the north on Lot 10A, who is agreeable to the variance request. The applicant, Janice Barnett, requests a variance to Section 4.3.C.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Specifically, the applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 30-foot height limit to allow a maximum height of 57-feet for the construction of a single-family residential structure on Lot 10B, Block 4, Windcliff 5th Filing. The grade across the lot is steep (45%). An access easement across the front of the lot limits the ability to push the building lower into the hillside. The house may be designed to provide conformance with the maximum height limit. However, a fully conforming site plan would break up the floor plan into different levels with connecting stairs, and generally disrupt architectural flow of the structure. The requested variance, to allow for a building height of 57-feet in lieu of the 30-foot maximum (an increase of 90%) is substantial. Other homes in the Windcliff Subdivision have been built with similar heights. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Gary Brothers and Jim Vander Voorst of BVZ Architects were present to represent the applicant, who was also present in the audience. To help with the appearance, the rooflines have been broken and set back. In color and form the roof blends In with the trees. From a distance, the house does not appear to be higher than the trees. Public Comment: BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 7, 2000 Page 2 Frank Haggard, President of the Windcliff Property Owners Association - spoke in favor of this variance request and noted the unusual conditions of Windcliff Estates which will require either setback or height variances on most if not all of the remaining vacant lots. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to increase the maximum height limitation from 30 feet to 57 feet as per the submitted plan with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. 1. Full compliance with the Unified Building code. 2. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). 3. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. 4. 1541 DEVILS GULCH ROAD. NORTH END. APPLICANTS: WES & VENDY LOCKARD - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4- 2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The existing home has a 10 ft. setback. The position of the existing swale and related mature vegetation makes the variance necessary. The only other options would be to reduce the size of the addition or to relocate the addition to the front of the house where it would not fit well with the existing structure. It appears unlikely that the area next to the proposed addition on the adjacent property would ever be occupied with a structure, in part due to 1he existing rock outcrop. The neighbors to the west where the variance is requested have called to say they support the request. Joe Hladick was present representing the applicant. Bill Van Horn also was present and commented that an amended plat is planned to combine the two lots and asked that the variance be approved to allow a building permit to be issued with only an application for the amended plat being required. There were no setbacks at the time the house and garage were built. Chief Building Official Birchfield responded to the Board’s question regarding issuance of a building permit; however, it was determined that the building permit process is Independent of the variance decision. Public Comment: None Based on the age of the property and buildings, the findings of staff, and the fact that there were no adverse effect to the neighbors, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to reduce the side setback from 50 feet to 10 feet as per the submitted plan with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. 1. Application be made for an Amended Plat to combine the property into a single parcel prior to application for a building permit. 2. Staff shall review and approve the site plan / house plan. 5. LOT 38. UPLANDS AT FISH CREEK PUD. APPLICANT: RICHARD & KATHRYN VOLKSTORF - HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The existing covenants of the Uplands and the old county height limit were 40 feet. Several existing homes in BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 7, 2000 Page 3 the area already exceed the 30-foot height limit. The grade across the building site is approximately 18 to 20%. The proposed driveway will be graded at 8 to 10%. The point of the prow of the roof is the point of greatest height above existing grade. This point also happens to fall on a narrow swale or depression that cuts through the site. If this minor depression in the existing topography were disregarded, the height of the variance would be reduced down to about 36 feet. The majority of the roof structure is in compliance to the 30 ft. height liimit. The height of the roof will have some negative impact on the southerly views from the Hentosh home adjacent to the north. The proposed house is located as close to the street as possible thereby minimizing the encroachment into the Hentosh south view corridor. The views of the proposed house from elsewhere off site will be substantially screened or softened by the surrounding tall trees. Mike Todd with Rocky Mountain Consultants was present representing the applicant. The lot was purchased and design of the house was determined prior to the EVDC. There will be a landing and retaining wall at the bottom of the driveway. Public Comment: Mike Hentosh, owner of the adjacent lot 37, expressed concern that the garage is within the 10 feet of the property line. Will they be required to remove trees on their property to comply with the 15 foot Larimer County requirement for fire safety? Senior Planner Joseph advised that Tony Simons, Larimer County Wildfire Safety Officer, has advised that they would not require an individual property owner offsite to remove any vegetation. Rich Volkstorf answered questions from the Board. The house has been resituated since its original layout to allow for a better view from the Hentosh house and a better driveway layout. The buildingmaterials will be consistent with other houses in the area. Based on the efforts made by the applicant to provide adequate views for neighboring property and to limit the impact of the house from adjoining properties, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to approve the variance request to increase the maximum height limitation from 30 feet to 40 feet as per the submitted plan with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. 1. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). 2. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected 1o blend in with the surrounding hillside (dark greens, browns, or grays). 5. 1801 WINDHAM LANE, DUNRAVEN HEIGHTS, APPLICANT: ELIZABETH DOLMAN & R.M. RUBICK - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant, Elizabeth A. Dolman, requests a variance to Section 4.3.C.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 50-foot front yard setback to allow a setback of 37-feet to allow for the construction of a detached single car garage. The existing house was constructed in 1984. Designlor the workshop and garage/carport started in September 1999, and finalized in March BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 7, 2000 Page 4 2000. The lot is heavily forested with slopes of 25-30%, thus limiting developable land to that area immediately surrounding the existing structure. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The 50-foot setback restriction has recently been imposed on the owner’s property. These restrictions did not exist when the owner purchased the property or when design for the proposed garage was begun. The garage could be sited elsewhere on the lot, though this would likely require the removal of trees and additional excavation work. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Rod Rubick, applicant, answered the questions from the board. Moving the garage further to the south would destroy two additional trees and the view out of the kitchen window, and would prevent access to the house through the carport. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Ball/Newsom) to approve the variance request to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 36.92 feet as per the submitted plan with the foiiowing conditions and it passed unanimousiy. 1. Full compliance with the Unified Building Code. 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, sun/eyor, or architect. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan. Board member Baii had to leave the meeting at 9:35 a.m. 6. LOT 5. 6 AND 36 DEViLLE SUBDiViSiON. APPLiCANT: ESTES PARK LUMBER COMPANY - VARiANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.4. TABLE 4- 5 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting an increase in the standard from 50% to 56% of impervious lot coverage. Staff’s opinion is that the applicant has not proven a hardship or that unique circumstances exist. Bill Van Horn was present to represent the applicant. The standard prior to the EVDC was 80% coverage. This is an aesthetic and not a health or safety issue. This business is a very high volume, low margin interest which provides approximately $250,000 in taxes for the Town. The industry standards run much higher than 50% for commercially zoned sites (75%-90%). He cited several examples (i.e.. First National Bank, B&B site, Rent-All) in the immediate area that had higher percentages than 50%. Senior Planner Joseph cautioned the Board not to depart from the variance request to discuss the generalities of the Code. He briefly stated that the input received from the general public in regard to the commercial development was to improve the aesthetic appearance of the community. A storm drainage report has been reviewed by Public Works. Bill Van Horn advised that the lots to the east would be reseeded to provide better vegetation cover. The Lumber Yard is currently less in compliance than the project proposed. There is only one parking space on the proposed plans BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 7, 2000 Page 5 over Ihe minimum required by 1he Code. If 1he variance is approved, the drainage will be required to be detained to achieve the historic rate of release. Public Comment: Danny Basch, property owner across Graves Avenue - expressed concern over the drainage plans. Landscaping was also a concern, but feels it has been addressed. He would prefer the chainlink fencing be limited 1o only the storage areas. Marv Steele, the applicant, advised that the original development plan had been delayed due to the Highway 7 project in 1998. Parking spaces could be given up in order to attain the 50% coverage if necessary. Based on the information presented by staff and Mr. \fan Horn, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to increase the maximum impervious lot coverageIrom 50% to 56% asperthe submitted plan and it passed unanimously with one absent. 7. LOT 5. 6 AND 36 DEVILLE SUBDiViSION. APPLICANT: ESTES PARK LUMBER COMPANY- VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTIONS 7.5 and 7.13 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting this variance for chain link security fencing for the entire perimrjter of the property. The linear distance of this extended perimeter is substantial. Chain link fencing exists on this site as a “grandfathered” feature. Other fencing materials that are permitted would provide the required security and controlled access. It is staffs opinion that all of 1he fencing visible from a public street frontage and 1he far easterly side property line should conform to the requirements of the Code. Bill Van Horn advised that the chain link fencing would be brown coated to make it less conspicuous. After discussions with staff, they are suggesting that the fence line be relocated to the bottom of the slope, out of the line of sight, along Highway 7 and along Woodstock to the curve. From that point east along Woodstock, the fence would be moved to the 25 foot setback line behind the landscaping. The galvanized chain link fence between the lumberyard and Rent- All would be grandfathered. Senior Planner Joseph answered questions from the Board and advised that the Code did provide for alternative landscaping that would be equal to or superior to that required by1he Code. The Code requires screening of oulside storage areas which the chain link fencing does not fulfill. Bill Van Horn answered additional questions from the Board. The chain link fencing located at the base of the slope along Highway 7 is not observable from off-site. He advised that the landscaping would be in front of 1he fence along Highway 7 and Woodstock to further screen the fencing from offsite. Jim Bangs, general manager of the lumberyard, advised that the chain link fence is strictly for security. Maintenance of a solid fence is difficult and expensive. There is no way to screen the property from the corner area of Highway 7 and Woodstock. Public Comment: None. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS lEstes Valley Board of Adjustment November 7, 2000 Page 6 Based on the recognition that the impervious screening would be more detrimental, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow chain link fencing with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. The chain link fence will be relocated as verbally described by Mr. Van Horn. 2. The applicant shall be exempt from Section 7.13, which requires impervious screening for outside storage areas. There beingnolurther business, Chair Barker adjoumedlhe meeting at 10:57 a.m. Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary