The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Height 321 Kiowa Dr 2012-01-10 321 and 325 Kiowa Trail 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 E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 REQUEST : This request is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which limits structure height to 30 feet above original natural grade after slope adjustment in the A-Accommodations zone district. This would allow a post-construction height variance of approximately one foot for a duplex addressed 321 and 325 Kiowa Trail. LOCATION: 321 and 325 Kiowa Trail, Units 5 and 6, MaryÓs Meadow Condominiums APPLICANT/OWNER:MaryÓs Meadow Development Î James Tawney STAFF CONTACT:Alison Chilcott REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. ÐStandards for ReviewÑ of the Estes Valley Development Code, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES :This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. At the time of this report, no issues were expressed by reviewing staff. Neighbors concerns. On multiple occasions staff has met with two adjacent property owners; Mr. Tom Greslin of 2824 Kiowa Trail and Mr. Dave Schultz of 2800 Kiowa Trail. Both expressed concerns over numerous aspects of the MaryÓs Meadow development. Concerns include, but are not limited to, processing of staff-level minor modifications to the MaryÓs Meadow development plan, the height of the Unit 5/6 duplex, and height of future buidings. Planning Commission.Two Planning Commissioners, Betty Hull and Rex Poggenpohl, submitted comments (attached) concerning this variance request. This is the first time staff is aware of Planning Commissioners providing written comments to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. This was prompted by discussions at Planning Commission about the MaryÓs Meadow development in November and December. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this CodeÓs standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Energy Heel. Building Permit #9074 for Units 5 and 6 contains architectural elevations that demonstrate compliance with maximum allowable height. Plans did not account for a 12-inch tall energy heel contained in the truss plans. The addition of the energy heel resulted in a height violation. The engineer that prepared the construction plans did not prepare the truss system and may not have been aware of the energy heel. The twelve-inch energy heel was not a Town code requirement. The duplex will be LEED Built Green certified, which may require the energy heel. This allows for full depth insulation all the way to the outer wall. It significantly reduces energy loss in what would otherwise be a cold spot. Height Elevation Certificate. On this project staff required a height elevation certificate at both the footing and foundation (F&F) and roof framing stages. Standard practice had been to require a certificate at the F&F only. The height elevation certificate submitted at the F&F (attached) stated that the building would comply with maximum allowable building height if built to plans. The assumed structure height was incorrect. The December height elevation certificate (attached) states that the building as constructed is over the maximum allowable height. 2.In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Comment: The certificate of occupancies for this duplex will not be issued until the height violation is resolved, either through Board of Adjustment approval of the variance request or lowering the roof. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Comment:Staff does not find that the variance would substantially impact the character of the neighborhood; reducing the height will not significantly change the look of the building or off-site views. Adjacent property owners may hold a different opinion. d.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The height regulation was in place at the time the design of the home was commenced. e.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The applicant can demolish and reconstruct the roof to reduce the height. Staff is not aware of the full extent of demolition required; i.e. whether some or all of the roof system needs to be replaced. Staff made the applicant aware that demolition was a possibility a number of months ago, when staff first became aware that there may be a height violation. 3.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 4.In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment. Two Planning Commissioners have recommended additional requirements be placed on future buildings. For new structures over 25 feet tall, staff will require ridgeline elevation certificates and ridgeline height elevations certificates with the roof framing inspection. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance to allow the building to remain as constructed È (state reason/findings). I move to DENY the requested variance with the condition that revised plans be submitted for review and approval within 30 days and full compliance within 90 daysÈ (state reason/findings). Note: If not completed within this time frame staff will pursue additional code enforcement action (which may include court)