Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-05-01BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1,2001, 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: Town Attorney White, Acting Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the March 6,2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 1. AMENDED PLAT ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES. APPLICANT: JUDY HUGHES - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 17 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required on an arterial street in order to build a 28’ X 44’ house. The combined conditions of river setback, arterial street setback, and relatively small s|zeofthelot combine to create special circumstances for this lot. It should be noted that this'S due to platted right-of-way, not as-built conditions, which appear d,^ere!]t tha" 1tJl® platted right-of-way. The requested variance is not considered substantial by Staff. The essential character of the neighborhood would not chan9®- owner purchased the property in October 2000, after the adoption of the Estes vX Development Code. It is Staffs opinion the requested 8-foot vanan^ s the least deviation allowing for maintenance of the river setback and a relatively narrow house. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewi g staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Judv Huohes spoke regarding her variance request. She wished to save the mature trees as well as protect the river by shifting the building footprint to the east appToximate^y 15 fLt. The deok shown on the site plan has not been finalized. The Code would allow a deck on grade and uncovered. A raised deck with a railing would need to be a part of the variance request. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded(Sager/Bail)to approve the variance request to aliow a 17 foot front yard setback in iieu of 25 feet . j • <«p>> cctate zonino district and to allow for a 4 foot encroachment into the river setback for a first floor deck with thefoMowing conditions and it passed unanimousiy. Ali variances granted y e o?Ad ustment shSi become nuii and void if a Brtuilt! "9“ h“;°‘0bn®^^ issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1,2001 Page 2 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan with the exception the house maybe relocated approximately 15 feet to the east. 3. 561 CHICKADEE LANE. APPLICANTS: SHERWIN AND PAT CRUMLEY - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 25-foot side yard setback to allow a setback of 18.5 feet. The applicant desires to add a first floor bedroom to the back of the existing cabin, which was built In the early 1920’s. Based on the built conditions, subsequent zoned setback requirements, and relatively small size of the lot. Staff feels special circumstances exist for this particular lot. The cabin has been used for residential purposes since construction in the 1920’s. Due to the character of the neighborhood, the existing cabin, and the fact this is an addition as opposed to new construction. Staff feels the variance request is not substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The CrunJl®y ® purchased the property in 1994 before the Estes Valley Deveiopnnent Code became effective in 2000. There was no zoned setback requirement when the ^Wn was buiir The bedroom could be moved toward the interior of the M creating a notch in the wall and eliminating the need for a vanance however t^s would partially block a window and storage space. Factors for consideration would include the appearance and functionality of the structure, signrf issues were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Sherwin Crumley spoke regardingtheirreques an advised they wish to maintain the character of the cabin with the addition. Public Comment: None. Based on the age of the cabin, the appearance of the cabin with the addition and the character of the neighborhood, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to fH°“ ® ^ yard setback of 18.5 feet instead of the 25 foot setback as required in - 1 zoning district and it passed unanimousiy. j,9nr® pern5fhas Board of Adjustment shali become nuil and void if a Budding Permit not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within tweive (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 4. appeal REGARDINr, STAFF ■NTERP_RETATION OFrTHE CODE, SECg^ FLOOR AREAdefinition nEVELOPMFNT CODE. APPLICANT: BILL VAN HORN BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1,2001 Pages the floor area calculation; if the height is 10 feet then the space must be buried more than five feet below grade to be exempt. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a tool to limit volume and bulk. Floor Area ratio was adopted to implement scenic and design policies that were approved with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, specifically to place limits on the amount of bulk coverage that can be built. FAR is the ratio of gross floor area divided by gross lot or land area measured in square feet. The Code provides an exception for spaces that are essentially unseen because they are buried below grade. The theory behind “50% below grade” is that if more than half of a room is below ground, it does not increase the apparent bulk of the development, and should be exempt. If more than half of a room is above the ground, it does increase the apparent bulk, and should be counted toward the FAR calculation. Staff interprets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan into “any area in a residential building that is more than fifty percent (50%) below grade” as meaning room area, a three-dimensional measurement. The logic in this interpretation is that rooms have walls in addition to floors, and are, therefore, three-dimensional objects with volume and bullL Therefore, the “any area” inherently refers to three-dimension^ geomet^, and must include the third dimension “z-axis.” Staff interprets the Code, if haW the room height is below grade, then that portion of the floor area is exempt from the FAR Safcns. In addition, Staff feels finished grade should be used ,n this calculation. Board Member Sager asked for clarification why the finished grade ,was used Instead of original grade which is used in the calculation for the height lim'tation^^ The intent K code is to conceal the bulk from visibility on or off site There are situations where berming could be used to achieve the objective by bSow“shed grade. In the case of gross floor area calculation, it is less problematic to use the finished grade. Bill Van Horn advised he is the applicant but is also "“"S‘0URr and Michele Johnson (Sunset Ridge). thatParade should be consistent, calculation and FAR. Director Joseph noted that the Code is very specific with height determination using the original grade. Mr. Van Horn reviewed their in'erpreiationof ‘!l® ‘l°fVj!jJe0ahSg^^^ measurement. The language in the Co . .,. ^ ||00r Space is below ttie room and depth below grade is not a factor. Town Attorney White noted that -der |h® oid r|e"rSeEVDc\Whic^^^ BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1,2001 Page 4 are inconsistent with another, the more restrictive provision shaii govern. The purpose for piacing the FAR in the Code was to reduce the appearance of buik. The staff interpretation is more restrictive. Area is a generai term in the Code and not technical. Director Joseph noted that the FAR is based on all the floor space including the basement except for the exclusions. Exclusion (b), “Any area where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than five (5) feet;” clearly uses height measurement. Even though the formula uses measurements in square feet, the height of the area is taken into what square footage is allowed. Mr. Van Horn, however, noted that the next item does not say half way to the ceiling, but only “50% below grade.” The Code should be interpreted as understood by a layperson. Code is a literal law, not intent of the staff. How would the average person interpret 106.c? The FAR provision is always more restrictive than the density limitation. The provision also differentiates between people with different ceiling heights and penalizes the one with high ceilings. Board Member Sager commented that trained professionals work on development plans, not laypeople. These professionals should understand the concept involved. Director Joseph noted this provision was specifically designed to lim|tb^k-As^n example, when RiverRock was developed with large townhomes, the development was density compliant; but several ^'|'z®n®c°,r&fndaf high “density” which was caused by the perceived bulk of the buildings. Town Attorney White commented that this provision was meant to restrict the use of the property. application conferences. Town Attorney White noted that only brief fn0nuf rnlSSinedS^^^ authority to'change the ori^naUntent of the Code, but can recommend revisions to Planning Commission and Town Board. fn“rre1»™ placed around more than half the building. Mr. Van Horn noted that if the interpretation is changed, the ratio could be revised. Town Attorney White advised the Boart that if^^fg^® J2re^gggrg@de with0^^ no further action would take ILnrovisionanddecide whether to iS?et:o"me"s,raX^thr;atio number and/or clarrfy the language. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1,2001 Pages Public Comment: Dave Habecker, designer on a couple of the subject projects - spoke in opposition of the staff interpretation. FAR is too restrictive. Projects should be allowed to proceed based on old code until Town Board can review and revise the current Code. The provision was causing undue expense and creating visually unattractive units by causing so much of the building to be placed underground. Director Joseph responded that the Code does not require a developer to put living space below grade. Mr. Van Horn noted that if the provision was to prevent bulk, it does not work as upper levels could have 20 ft. ceilings creating bulk but not changing the FAR. The height limitation controls the physical height and impression of bulk. Matthew Heiser, employee of Van Horn Engineering - spoke in favor of the request. The intent is not clear and the literal translation is horizontal area. The layperson does not interpret it as staff does. Richard Wille, developer - agreed with the need to reduce bulk, but not with this provision. Board comments; ^ „ -jBoard Member Lamy: difficult decision, some factors not under Board purview, needs to go back to the drawing board. Board Member Newsom; needs to be defined in more simple terms, needs to be clearer for the public to understand. ^Board Member Sager; Staff is following what they thought the public wanted. Chair Barker; Staff is supposed to go to the most restrictive interpretation Code; however, he didn’t like it. Cubic calculation does not work Board Member Ball; need to clarify the language, make sure 9ulde'|nesare followed that have been set for the Board. Some things in the Code need to be changed faster. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to suPP°fo®*®!! Motion failed. Those voting “Yes” - Lamy. Sager. Those voting No -Barker, Newsom, Ball. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Newsom) t°nsnuPP0'Jlh|a interpretation and the motion passed. Those voting . Barker and Lamy. Those voting “No” - Sager. BoardRMember Sager acknowledged Bob Joseph as the new Community Development Director. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m. Jeff 6^rker, Chair 1^1-1 Meribeth Wheatley, Recording S ecretary