Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-07-10BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 10,2001, 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: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 7:55 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the June 5,2001, meeting were accepted as presented. b. 179 Centennial Drive; Lot 12, Centenniai Hiiis Subdivision. Continued to the August 7, 2001 meeting at the request of the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to continue 179 Centenniai Drive, Lot 12, Centenniai Hiiis Subdivision to the August 7, 2001 meeting. 2. LOT 23. REPLAT OF A PORTION OF VENNER RANCH ESTATES. 2nd FILING. 1530 PROSPECT MOUNTAIN DRIVE. APPLICANTS: KENNETH & KATHLEEN LINDEMAN - HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the 30-foot maximum height in the “E-l" Estate District to allow a maximum height of 36 feet for the construction of a new single-family residential structure. Special circumstances include a steep slope. A conforming structure would require a disjointed floor plan with multiple levels and excessive cut. Additional cut on steep slopes may have adverse effects on site drainage and stability. The requested variance is to allow a maximum height of 36 feet, an increase of 6 feet over the 30-foot height limit. Due to the slope, grading and geologic conditions, and the previously allowed 40-foot height. Staff does not consider this a substantial variance. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The applicant purchased the property in 1997. At that time, the maximum height was 40 feet. Staff recommends approval with conditions. The Certificate of Occupancy would not be held for the completion of revegetation; however, the planning and initial steps should be commenced. There was no corner staking of the building, which should have been available prior to the meeting. Charles Phillips was present to represent the applicants. The design of the house began prior to the implementation of the EVDC when there was only a 40- foot height limitation. Without the variance, several retaining walls and additional grading would be required. Handicap accessibility is an issue and the applicants wish to have the main living area on one level. The building is half way up the hill and the view of the roof will blend in with the hillside. There is only a small portion of the entire roof that exceeds the 30-foot height limit. The owners have chosen colors that will blend in with the hillside. It was an oversight not to have the site properly staked. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 10,2001 Page 2 Applicant was commended for their planning and vicinity map. Public Comment: None. Based on the steep slope, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve a height variance of 36 feet as opposed to 30 feet as required in the E-1 zoning district with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Submittal of a complete grading plan, Including existing and proposed contours, driveway grade, drainage, erosion control during construction, and revegetation. 2. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, submittal of a height verification certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. This certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the approved site plan. 3. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the site must be revegetated to minimize slope erosion. Revegetation shall be in compliance with Section 7.2 “Grading and Site Disturbance” of the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. Submittal of a building permit application demonstrating: a. Compliance with the submitted site plan, b. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows), c. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend In with the surrounding hillside. 3. 129 WEST ELKHORN AVENUE. APPLICANT: KURT STREIB - HEIGHT AND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-5 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the maximum height of 30 feet and the 8 foot front setback to allow for the addition of a third story residential unit in the downtown area. The existing building, built in 2000, currently encroaches into the setback requirement on the Cleave Street frontage by 1.1 feet. The third floor addition would extend this north wall vertically, thus expanding the non-conforming structure. The height variance request is for an addition of approximately 3 feet to the maximum building height and is requested to provide parapets on the north, east and west sides of the building. The parapets are a provision of the Uniform Building Code, though the structure may be designed to satisfy the UBC without the parapets. The mural on the east side of the structure is considered a sign under the Municipal Sign Code, and was not permitted nor does it fall within the guidelines of the Sign Code. The requested height variance is for 3 feet for a parapet wall and the requested setback variance is for 1.1 feet, consistent with the existing structure. Staff does not consider these requests substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change with the approval of the requested setback variance, though the addition of a third story will have an impact on the visual corridor of Elkhorn Avenue and Cleave Street. Because of this, special considerations to the architectural design of the structure should be required. Based on the location of the existing structure, it is Staff’s opinion the requested setback variance is the least deviation from the Code that will allow BRADFORD PUBUSHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 10,2001 Page 3 relief. It is recommended that the streetscape appearance of Cleave Street be improved. The backside of this third story will be visible from the south side of Elkhorn Avenue. Serious consideration should be given to the architectural design and appearance of this building. The legality of the exterior mural was discussed. The applicant purports that the mural is not a sign. Director Joseph read the definition of a sign from the Code. Chair Barker excused himself at 8:52 am to attend to duties at the Fairground. Vice Chair Sager assumed the chair. Kurt Streib, owner of the building, spoke regarding the mural. The mural was an effort to improve the appearance of the building from Cleave Street, not as an advertising tool. The Board discussed the determination of the legality of this mural as a sign. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) that the mural was an illegal sign. Motion passed. Those voting “yes”: Ball, Newsom, Sager. Those voting “no”: Lamy. Board member Sager suggested that the Town and/or EPURA take a more active involvement in the improvement of Cleave Street. Board member Lamy commended the applicant on creating housing in the downtown area. Since the Code allows the Board of Adjustment to refuse review based on the applicant’s nonconformance in regard to the sign code, Staff requested that the Board decide whether to continue discussion of the variance based on the condition that the mural would be removed. It was by mutual agreement to continue with the hearing. Steve Lane, architect, advised that the owner would consider removing the sign in order to proceed with the discussion today. He reviewed photos with drawings indicating the height and appearance of the proposed structure. The proposed design would aesthetically improve Cleave Street. The view from the south side of Elkhorn would be minimized by not having a parapet on that side. Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official, explained that the UBC generally requires parapets but there are some exceptions with alternatives that could apply. Steve Lane said the parapet wall was a better choice for visual screening of roof penetrations. Drainage would also be rerouted from Cleave Street to a storm drain that runs south toward Elkhorn Avenue. The setback variance is less than other existing buildings on Cleave Street and is minimal. Staff suggests that the addition be designed with the south fagade being given special consideration to building materials and roof design. Based on submitted drawings, inciuding the revised exterior architecturai detaiis, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to aiiow a height variance of 33 feet as opposed to 30 feet and a front yard (Cieave Street) setback of 6.5 feet as opposed to the 8 foot BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 10,2001 Page 4 setback as required in the CD zoning district to aiiow for the addition of a third-story apartment with the foiiowing conditions and it passed. Those voting “yes”: Lamy, Newsom, Baii. Those voting “no”: Sager. Aii variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shaii become nuii and void if a Buiiding Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within tweive (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Removal of the wall mural prior to final building inspection. 2. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, submittal of a height verification certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor or professional designer. This certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the approved variance. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Vice Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m. arker. Chair Al Sager, Vice Chair Meribeth Wheatley, RecordingSecretary