Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2014-07-01 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 1, 2014 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Moreau and Smith Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Newsom and one vacant position Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were three people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the May 6, 2014 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0, with one absent and one vacant position. 3. LOT 32, VENNER RANCH ESTATES, 2ND REPLAT, 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Thomas Jaster & Deb Carpenter, have requested a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a maximum height of thirty (30) feet in all zone districts. The request is to allow an additional story to an existing single-family home. A portion of the proposed roof ridge would protrude approximately three feet above the slope-adjusted height limit. Staff reviewed the application according to EVDC Section 3.6.C “Standards for Review,” and routed it to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No concerns were expressed. One neighbor commented in support of the project. Planner Kleisler stated the lot in question is of typical size for the area, but the shape is irregular, which makes expansion difficult. The most logical solution is to go up. While the property is near the ridgeline, staff determined it was not in the designated Ridgeline Protection Area and visual impact would not be an issue. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 6, 2014 Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances exist as the parcel is shallow and triangular in shape. The site is 4.4 acres. The average acreage of properties within 500 feet is 13.5 acres; however, the average lot size is reduced to 3.7 acres if the large lot (#1435) is excluded. Therefore, while the lot size is adequate and generally consistent with neighboring properties, the shape appears prohibitive. There are constraints that prevent an expansion from the sides; septic system, driveway, setback, and rock. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, this single-family home was built in 1979. 2. In determining practical difficulty, staff found the residential use may continue without the variance. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. The project site is close to a mapped Ridgeline Protection Area, defined in the EVDC as the “ground line located at the highest elevation of and running parallel to the long axis of the ridge.” Staff requested photo simulations from the applicant, demonstrating the proposed addition would not be seen from the public right-of-way below. Upon a site visit and review of the Estes Valley Ridgeline Protection Areas map, staff determined the home was not within the Ridgeline Protection Area. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size, with some being directly on the ridgeline. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 280 feet to the south. 5. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. 6. The applicant purchased the property in 1998, prior to the adoption of the current setback requirements. The height limit in 1998 was forty (40) feet. The height limit was lowered to thirty (30) feet with the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. 7. A variance appears to be the only practical option to construct a second story living space, as proposed. 8. The second story roof angle could possibly be rotated 180 degrees to meet the height standards. This would move the location of the deck and windows to the back of the lot. 9. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends a Surveyor Certificate be required to confirm compliance. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval, with conditions listed below. Public Comment Steve Lane/Applicant representative stated the property was designed upward due to the constraints. The proposed project would include an eight foot ceiling height, with a roof slope as low as possible to lessen the height. The maximum height is thirty feet tall, but the slope is what makes it exceed the height limit. He stated photo simulations were done from Park RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 May 6, 2014 River West Condominiums and also from Elm Road. The house could not be seen from either location, and it was determined visual impact would be minimal. He stated the maximum height would not be more than three feet over the thirty-foot height limit, and the requested height certificate would be measured from the lowest floor elevation. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the approved site plan; and 2. Height (elevation) certificate shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request for the Lot 32, Venner Ranch Estates, 2nd Replat, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0, with one absent and one vacancy. 4. LOT 1, LITTLE PROSPECT ADDITION (PORTION OF STANLEY PARK), 1125 Rooftop Way, Stanley Park Fairgrounds Multi-Purpose Event Center. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This request is for a variance from EVDC section 4.4, Table 4-5, which has a maximum height limit of thirty (30) feet in all zone districts. The owner/applicant is the Town of Estes Park. The request is to increase the height of the silo portion of the Multi-Purpose Event Center currently under construction at the fairgrounds. The silo is located at the southwest corner of the building. Planner Shirk stated the request was to increase the height from 30 to 34 feet. If approved, the proposed roof elevation would align with the height of the main part of the building (the clerestory), which was granted a variance in 2012. The clerestory is 37-feet tall. The difference in building heights is due to the floor of the silo area being higher than the floor of the main building. Planner Shirk stated the height issues were not realized until construction began, when it was determined the proposed height would create maintenance issues related to protection from the elements. The current design includes a roof overhang that would be connected to the silo roof with fasteners through the silo roof. These fasteners would penetrate the silo roof and increase potential for water leaking into the building. He stated height limits are often hard to comply with when the building is very large, as is the case here. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances are related to the building, not the lot. Strict adherence to the standards may result in practical difficulty related to maintenance of the building. Approval would not nullify the intent and purpose of the height limit and would not impact nearby properties. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 May 6, 2014 2. The current design may continue, though it would likely void warranty of the silo roof and increase long-term maintenance costs. 3. The variance is not substantial. The proposed height would not be taller than the main portion of the building. Additionally, the conical narrows at the top, minimizing the amount of roof structure that would extend above the height limit. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The roof elevation would not extend above the main portion of the building. The nearest houses are over 300 feet away. 5. The variance would not affect the delivery of public services. 6. The Town has owned the property for several decades. The property was deeded to the Town from F.O. Stanley for use a fairgrounds. 7. The design team explored many options and determined this is the most economical to alleviate the condition. 8. The conical roof narrows at the top, which minimizes the amount of roof above the height limit. 9. Should the variance be approved, staff recommends a surveyor confirm compliance. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the requested variance, with conditions listed below. Public comment Ginny McFarland/applicant representative the original design called for an overbuild over the silo roof. The change came when it was determined the warranty may be voided on the silo if holes were placed in the roof. The variance request was the simplest, clearest, long-term solution to resolve the problem. Member Moreau, a local builder, suggested a way to elevate the roof without penetrating the membrane of the silo roof. He disagreed with the method of construction being used to solve the problem. Special Events Director Bo Winslow indicated Mr. Moreau was correct; however, the project designers were hoping to move forward with the minimum height variance possible, since one variance had already been approved. He stated the design had to meet wind and snow loads, and this was the minimum amount of variance that could be completed without completing an extensive change order. Member Moreau offered a few other construction tips for the applicant. The Board discussed the possibility of granting a variance higher than requested. There was general consensus among the Board to allow the project to be built correctly, with reduced risk for maintenance issues. Chair Lynch recommended granting a six foot variance instead of the four feet requested. A six foot allowance would greatly improve the drainage in the area of concern. Planner Kleisler stated he spoke with Town Attorney Greg White, who said the Board of Adjustment does have the authority to grant a variance greater than what was requested and advertised. This authority comes from the change being initiated by the Board rather than the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 May 6, 2014 applicant coming to the hearing and requesting a greater variance than what was advertised and noticed to adjacent property owners. After brief discussion between the applicant and the Board, it was determined an eight-foot variance would be enough to revise the construction plans to solve all maintenance and drainage issues; the best option possible. Ms. McFarland assured the Board the plans would not exceed the maximum height required to solve the issues. Mr. Winslow and Ms. McFarland expressed their appreciation to the Board for recognizing the need for a greater variance than the absolute minimum, and using their authority to proposed a greater height variance. Conditions of Approval 1. A surveyor shall verify compliance with the approved variance prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request for the Multi-Purpose Event Center, not to exceed forty-one feet six inches (41’6”) from existing grade to allow the Town of Estes Park to properly build the silo and roof to resolve construction issues, and with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacant position. Planner Shirk requested a post-construction report from the applicants to inform the Board of the final result. 5. REPORTS A. Senior Planner Shirk expressed appreciation to Member Moreau for being on the Board and sharing his expertise on construction methods. B. Senior Planner Shirk reported there would not be a meeting in August. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary