The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Height 400 Big Boulder Dr 2011-06-07Washburn Height Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: June 7, 2011 REQUEST: Variance from the adjusted maximum height limit of 35' 6" to allow a maximum height of 37' 8" (2' 2" variance). LOCATION: TBD Big Horn Drive, within the Town of Estes Park. To get there, turn north off Wonderview Avenue on Big Horn Drive, then turn left at 461 Big Hom Drive. Property is located on left side of the yards west of Big Hom Drive (see aerial photo on next page). APPLICANT: Jeff Moreau, Dallman Construction PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and Rachelle Washburn STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: drive, approximately 150 Consultant: Dallman Construction (builder); Thorp Associates (Joe Calvin, architect) Parcel Number: 3524300042 Development Area: 1.2 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Single-family residential Zoning Designation: E-1 Estate Adjacent Zoning: East: E-1 Estate North: E-1 Estate West: E-1 Estate South: E-1 Estate Adjacent Land Uses: East: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services: Water: Town Sewer. EPSD PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Sections 4.3 Maximum Building Height and Section 1.9.E2 Measurement of Maximum Building Heights on Slopes to allow a new single-family residential dwelling. The proposed height would be 37' 8" from existing grade, where 35' 6" would typically be allowed. r 4010 REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board should keep these criteria in mind when reviewing the variance request. Maximum Building Height. The standard height limit of the development code is 30-feet from original grade. However, this standard is modified by Section 1.9.E2 of the EVDC, which provides for a "sliding scale" regarding maximum building height. Essentially, the uphill side of a structure is limited by the 30' limit, while the downhill side of the structure is allowed to exceed the 30' limit a factor of half the elevation drop. What this means is that if the original grade drops by 10' over the footprint of the house, the downhill side would have a maximum height of 35'; if the drop is 14', the maximum downhill height would be 37'. Due to the allowed modification, which was implemented several years ago to minimize height variances, staff recommends the structure be designed to comply with the height limit. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, June 7, 2011 _..._................_._...m _.._...._...._. .,,.,.. Page 2 of 4 4 Washbum Height Variance Request REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighbor Comments. The applicant has submitted two letters of support from two nearby neighbors (see attached). FINDINGS: 1. This request does not comply with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. Special circumstances do not exist and practical difficulty would not result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 4. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 5. The variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. 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. 7. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. The conditions associated with this lot — slope — are recurrent within the Estes Valley, and the development code was amended in 2001 to account for such conditions with the adoption of Section 1.9.E2. 8. Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Disapproval. Should the Board opt to approve the variances, Staff recommends the following conditions be imposed: 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Height Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the structure height. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, June 7, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Washburn Height Variance Request SUGGESTED MOTION: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variances with the findings recommended by staff. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, June 7, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Washbum Height Variance Request Dave Shirk �Jlm: To: Cc: Subject: Todd Steichen Friday, May 13, 2011 1:20 PM Karen Thompson; Dave Shirk; Tracy Feagans Reuben Bergsten RE: Lot 41 B, Replat of Tract 41 & a portion of Tract 46, Fall River Addition & a portion of Tract 101, Al Fresco Place Addition - Washburn Variance Request - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT L&P has no comments or concerns with this variance request. Todd. From: Karen Thompson Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 2:12 PM To: Jacqueline Halburnt; Scott Zurn; Kevin Ash; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Will Birchfield; Derek Rosenquist Subject: Lot 41B, Replat of Tract 41 & a portion of Tract 46, Fall River Addition & a portion of Tract 101, Al Fresco Place Addition - Washburn Variance Request - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT REFFERAL FOR COMMENT This email is to notify you that staff has received a variance application, which can be viewed by accessing the following links or by visiting our website at http:/Jwww.estes.or comdev CurrentRequests,aspx. Typ Washburn Residence Variance A TBD r Horn Delve S GIn Valk:1y BOa¢°d a'tt Artjw,tte aom' nt 6/"/ft'1 alater_mmlof Intent, and ANSIn 51 a Plan S PDF S Staff ff ttepou'I. Send Ctornsieratti. revadable flfl:u f YevR,r,°'dytirk Ttt. ll° 12/11 °6 S I If you prefer paper copies of documents, please email the Staff Contact listed above. Thank you for your help in our effort to reduce the need for paper copies. Please submit any comments you may have regarding this request as soon as possible, but no later than May 27, 2011. Comments can be sent via mail, email (dshirk estes.or , or fax (970.586.0249). Thank you for your comments. Karen Thompson Administrative Assistant Dave Shirk From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kevin Ash Friday, May 27, 2011 2:49 PM Alison Chilcott; Dave Shirk Scott Zurn RE: Development reviews due today 27 may 2011 Dave and Alison, Scott and I went through the variance requests for: Rippling River Development Chophouse Washburn residence building height Springer side yard set -back Sundance proposed garage Public Works does not have any comments on these. Let me know if we are missing any that are due today. Thank you, Kevin Ash, PE Public 'l orks Civil Enineer Town of Estes ark 97 A577.3586 esk 970.227.0437 cell kashestes.or From: Reuben Bergsten Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:28 PM To: Scott Zurn; Kevin Ash Cc: Alison Chilcott; Jeff Boles Subject: Development reviews due today 27 may 2011 FYI =1 1111111111 11111111 A',, ell .A.:CONS". '1� 21. ES :P :'i,; 111 ., C PH: 97-! 14: 1 NJ'e.. ,.v7i>tl.pimr„,4 °7 April 26, 2011 Community Development Department Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Lot 41B Fall River Addition Parcel # 35243-00-042 To whom it may concern: Jeff Moreau/Dallman Construction on behalf of the Owners Thomas and Rachelle Washburn are pleased to submit site plans as well as elevations for a variance request at Lot 41B Fall River Addition. Owners The property is currently owned by Thomas and Rachelle Washburn. Property Description Currently the lot is vacant, and the owners are interested in constructing a new single family residence on the lot. The lot is zoned E-1 with allowable height of 30' above natural grade. EVDC 4.3 Table 4-2 (Maximum Building Height) & EVDC 1.9.E.2 Figure 1-4 (Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes Due to the steepness of the lot, the large rock outcroppings and the elevation of the shared driveway at the North West corner of the lot, the proposed North West driveway will be steeper than desired (greater than 20%). Also due to the large rock outcroppings and amount of rock below the top soil extensive blasting will need to be done to place the house at the maximum allowable height per the calculations provided in the EVDC 1.9.E.2 Figure 1-4 (see the attached calculations). We are requesting that a height variance be granted of 2'-6" to allow for the decrease in the steepness of the North West driveway to 15% grade as it approaches the house and to lessen the impact of the blasting on the lot. It also appears that if the variance is granted there will be no ill effect on the views from any of the surrounding or future residences (please see attached letters from two of the neighboring properties). Access Access to this site is from a private road off of Big Horn Drive. Utilities Water- Town of Estes Park Sewer- Estes Park Sanitation District Telephone- Qwest Electric- Town of Estes Park Gas- Xcel Energy COM Te N C 211 1 IN ST :E.r E S P" 1,C °j" a, 4 7 Drainage There are no plans to adversely change the drainage patterns. Sincerely Dallman$ onstruction Company Inc. Jeff Moreau Point A L r N Cf NSIRUCTION CO PA."°°1C. 211 FOURTH S".i1.°rf.E ESTES ES PARK, COL 11" i ;f„ 517 PH: 97 " -5 f -5141 E :970-5 6-4387 Washburn Residence Allowable Height Calculations Natural Grade = 7,748.15' Point B Natural Grade =7,737.20' Point B is where the roof ridge is the highest above natural grade Maximum Height Mb Mb= 30' + 0.5 (a-b) Mb= 30' + 0.5 x 10.95' Mb= 35.47' Maximum Ridge Elevation Natural Grade at Point B +Mb 7,737.20' + 35.47' = 7,772.67' Proposed Ridge Elevation Main level finished floor + main level to ridge dimension 7,749.84' + 25.0' = 7,774.84' Height of Ridge above Natural Grade at point B 7,774.84'-7,737.20'= 37.64' (37'-8") Requested Variance 7,774.84' (proposed height) — 7, 72.67' (calculated max. height) = 2.17' (2'-3") ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN APPLICATION Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): Thomas and Rachelle washbu Street Address of Lot TBD Bio Horn Drive Legal Description: Lot: 41B Block: Subdivision: Fall River Add Parcel ID # : 52 a' - r1 - 0. 2 7 APR 2011 Tract: 41 Lot Size -1 1 R a r re Q Zoning _ Existing Land Use TTrt4 m.,n.,,= Proposed Land Use T,T, ; rti 1 Ta m i 11 y Existing Water Service Q Town r Well III"- Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service Town Well I Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r."""' EPSD II UTSD Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service IX EPSD UTSD Septic Existing Gas Service d � Xcel llll"°'" Other IX None Site Access (if not on public street) Big Horn Drive Are there wetlands on the site? Yes 10C No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): EVDC 4 .3 Table 4-2 (Max. Buildin Height)EVDC 1.9.E.2 Fig 1-4 (Measurement of Max. Bldg. Ht.on Slopes) er attached calculations and additonal 2'-6" is re • ested) Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person fie, f Complete Mailing Address Max eau Prima Contact Person is i.." Owner fX .licant i-'"° Consultant/En*ineer 1 Application fee (see attached fee schedule) IX Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6. C of the Estes Valley Development Code) IX 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** IX 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park . P.O. Box 1200 -e: 170 MacGregor Avenue .ts Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax (970) 586-0249 -e+ www,estes.org/ComDev Revised V 1 /20/09 Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Zoning District Max. Net Density (units/acre) RE-1 RE E-1 R-1 "though Lot la*(tl[ ..25-0711, 1/10 Ac. 10Ac. 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 1 1 Ac. [3] 2 Y2 Ac. [3] 4 '/a Ac. 200 200 100 75 60 Front 50 50 25 25- arterials; 15-other streets 25- arterials; 15-other streets 50 50 25 10 10 50 50 25 15 15 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 R-2 4 Residential Uses: RM Max = 8 and (Ord. Min = 3 18-01 Senior #14) Institutional Living Uses: Max =24 Notes to Table 4-2: [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots In open space developments. • (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing, (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an Increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 §1) [2] See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/rlver corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) [3] If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth In §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." Single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [4] [8] (Ord. 25-07 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: 1 AC. 60 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25- arterials; 15-other streets 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 10 [6] 10 30 20 30 20 [7] [4] Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual townhome unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%, 9 (Ord, 25-07 §1) [6] Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for townhome developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall ELQI apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) [9] All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-slte dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum bullding/structure setback. (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord, 25-07 §1) [10] See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) Supp. 8 4-7 April 14, 2011 s� Variance Board Estes Park, Colorado To Whom It May Concern, It has come to our attention that Tom and Rachelle Washburn have purchased the property immediately to the north of our home at 415 W. Wonderview Avenue. Although they will have a Big Horn street address the property is adjacent to our back yard. We also understand that they are requesting a variance for the height of the home they wish to build which could possibly be 24-30" above the current height limitation. After looking at the property it appears to us that such an increase in height would not adversely impact our property. What would impact multiple neighbors is if the variance is not granted and they need to blast the rock to lower the elevation on the house. Previous construction projects on the hill have required blasting. We have felt the effects of such blasting. Due to the historic nature of our home we are concerned that further blasting could cause more harm, especially when it is directly above our property and blasting waves generally travel downhill. There are also neighbors on each side who sit slightly below the proposed building site who would be exposed to the effects of additional blasting as well. Therefore, we would encourage a positive response to the request for the height variance. Sincerely, Kelly and Gary Brown 415 W Wonderview Avenue Estes Park, Co 80517 970-586-2021 2011 April 17, 2011 To Whom It May Concern We live at 501 Big Horn Drive and we were the original developers of Lots 41a and 41b, Fall River Addition. We support the request of Mr. And Mrs. Thomas Washburn for a variance from the height requirement for their home to be built on Lot 41b. The additional height of 2 +/-feet would only be at the ridgeline and would in no way obstruct the views of any neighbor. The dwelling to the north of this lot sits at least a 100 feet higher and would look out over the top of this proposed house, which would be behind a ridge along the driveway. The property slopes sharply from north to south, and contains many large trees and boulders. Due to the topography it would be necessary do a lot of additional blasting in order to achieve their optimal interior ceiling height, and would result in a very steep driveway on the west. Therefore, we hereby request that you grant the Washburn's petition for a variance. Respectfully submitted, Charles F. Hix, Jr. and Alma I. Hix yheet/nae | 1 Si:e Location Plan 2 Si e Plan 3 Exterior Elevations Contact Information .„..i. ,,,,,, g i,.... : E!.. 4.:7; i : -1- .2 ,., 0 :.0,,,,„ Certification &Approval , , , ... | General Notes I | �J , 4- 0 .-- Z > 0 "LI w 0 .cc I— ne mom= U 0 0 U 0 u L.L.1 0 °' • Z ° 0 0 0 — F— • 'L-Q) ...I L.) 0 1,7) Z I— 0as A 0 Z 111% 1— 0 c' 0 w 111 co, • o 0 < • A • 0, • -- --- • • — 0 wable Height Calc 7C- „ A 0 O� (nz ra 15 -2 o cfM En I— < O.— •- 0 0 -C cC I— a CNA 41 e imau,ohnoiwe