Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2000-06-06BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 6,2000,8:00 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, and Sager Also Attending: Director Stamey, Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:Member Newsom Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MINUTES The minutes of the April 11,2000, meeting were accepted as presented. LOT 13. WOODLAND HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. 1861 HIGH DRIVE. APPLICANTS: JOHN & DEBBIE MCDOUGALL - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM EVDC SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 ON SETBACKS. AND—SECTION—6.3.C.2j ALTERATION/EXTENSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES LIMITED Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The current dwelling is situated 5 feet 2 inches from the rear property line, and has since 1959. The original cabin and subsequent additions have been located with this setback. The wellhead ori the south prevents construction in that direction. The statement of intent should be corrected to state that the building is a non-conforming structure, not a rion- conforming use. Member Sager noted he had spoken to Mrs. Harvill, a neighbor who said she and her mother, another neighbor, had no objections to the proposed addition. John and Debbie McDougall were present to answer the Board members questions. There was no public comment. Based on the staff findings that the standards for determining “Practical difficulty” have been sufficiently met, and the apphcants have made all attempts to mitigate the situation, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to approve the variance request, and it passed unanimously, with one absent. SKELDQN RESIDENCE. LOT 10A. REPLAT OF LOT^UBDrv|..nN APPLICANT: CHUCK AND SUE SKEL^ Dcni 11=^ FOR VARIAN^F FROM EVDC SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2, E-1 Z» MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 30 FEET Sr. Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. These 5 lots were platted in 1995and are commonly referred to as the “tree house lots.” This plat provided for horizonta building envelopes and a note on the plat also refers to the subdivision covenants that indude design guidelines pertaining to a height limit relative to Eag'ecl'ff Drive^ The covenants set a height limit that must not exceed 18 ft. above the level of the Streets to the site. The easting Walsh residence on Lot 10D was bu.ltm compliance with this limitation, and it results in a height that is aPPr°^n?^tel)'^ above the original grade at the tallest point. The steep slope of this lot creates a BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 6, 2000 Page 2 situation that makes strict compliance with the EVDC 30 foot limit unreasonably difficult. The surrounding tree canopy also serves to reduce the perceived height of the home as viewed from off site. There are no adjacent view corridors that are negatively impacted by the requested variance request. Therefore, the primary consideration appears to be the visual impact of the homes which can be greatly reduced by careful selection of exterior roof materials and color. The Walsh residence is a good example of color and material choice that minimizes the visual contract between the structure an the surrounding trees. Sr. Planner Joseph reviewed correspondence from Fire Chief Scott Dorman and John Blakemore, President of Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association. Steve Lane of Basis Architecture represented the applicants. Originally the plan was submitted to the Homeowners Association to request a 5 foot setback from the front property line which was denied. The footprint for the house was then placed to the allowable 10 foot setback. The applicant has started at the lowest possible grade in order to mitigate the height requirement. Chuck Skeldon, the applicant, also responded to questions from the Commission. He is aware of the added fire hazard, as he is a career firefighter, but plans to use alternative measures rather than installing the sprinkler system suggested by Chief Dorman. It was noted that Larimer County may require certain mitigation in their building permit process since this lot is located in a wildfire hazard area. Brad'Dement, Windcliff broker and property owner, described the Program that Windcliff has to help mitigate the wildfire hazard. He reviewed the history and reasoris for the required covenants for these 5 lots. The package of required features has been very site-specific and involved a large amount of review and discussion by the Windcliff community. John Blakemore, president of the Alpine Meadow Horneowrjers As^ciation. no^ there are two sets of covenants for this property. One is the Alpine lyieaaow Homeowners Association covenants for Windcliff Subdivision, and the other set (t SouseTovenante’) is specifically forthese 5 lots and are much more restnctrve. Both are still in effect. Loapp'^singa?otiySS^^^^^ that tree removal for wildfire mitigation may expose more of the structure from off site. Steve Une responded to a question from the Board that they have not yet visited with Tony Simons, the County’s wildfire safety officer. passed unanimously with one absent, with the following conditions. 1 Non-refiective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors, residence). BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 6, 2000 Page 3 Member Lamy noted there was a corner of the building roofline which crossed over the building envelope. In order to make an informed decision on variance requests, she also requested that pertinent comments from all the affected agencies should be provided. Chair Barker also noted that approval of this request was not based on providing a view, but on other considerations, i.e. steep slope and shape of the lot. MELANSON RESIDENCE. LOT 10B. REPLAT OF LOT 10, BLOCK?, WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5th SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: JOHN AND MARCY MELANSON - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM EVDC SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2. E-1 ZONING, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 30 FEET Sr. Planner Joseph noted that the staff report was very similar to the previous request and noted only the site specific differences. He reviewed the correspondence received from Town Attorney White, Fire Chief Dorman, and John Blakemore. Jim Vander Vorst, principal of BVZ Architects, and associate Gary Brothers, were present representing the applicants. BVZ Architects designed the prototype for this development and were the architects on the Walsh project. They wished to revise their request to ask for a 20 foot variance rather than the 17.5 feet shown in this proposal. They have tried to set the house as low as possible; however, after the foundation is poured, it may be necessary to adjust the height a few de9re®s- Fl^® mitigation will include thinning but not clear cutting. The roof overhangs outside the building envelope are not included in this variance request and will be adjusted so as not to encroach outside the building envelope. Georgeteomri neighboring property owner, broker and^e^^®r °f the Board of Directors of Windcliff Property Owners, spoke in favor of this request. Larry Gamble, RMNP, expressed concern that wiidfire rnit^ation may require removal of trees and opening up some view cofndo'^ rlswen^ comfortable with the materials and colors as depicted with the Walsh residence. The removal of trees might limit the amount of variance needed. tWnningaofetreer^ W^heAssodationd^s^ot'supportCcutti'ngdow,n9treeski order to build a house. ^ Hcci Ct Mnrit7 Trail oresident of Windcliff Homeowners completed. ZZe oX Chave agreed that the variance is required based on Town Attorney White’s memo. Sr. Planner Joseph agreed that the degree of flerdbility for the 20 foot variance has been adequately justified. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 6, 2000 Page 4 Based on staff findings that no adjacent view corridors are negatively impacted by the requested variance request, and the visual impact can be greatly reduced by careful selection of exterior roof materials and color, it was moved and seconded (Ball/Sager) to approve this variance request, and it passed unanimously with one absent, with the following conditions. 1. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors, (excluding windows). 2. Exterior colors shall be a dark grey or dark grey/green color that minimizes visual contract with the surrounding trees (similar to the existing Walsh residence). Chair Barker added comments regarding the reasons for approval for this and other requests which are not based on views. Member Lamy asked for more complete information from applicants in the future. Member Sager noted that there were no stakings on site of building locations and requested that, if possible, this be made a requirement for Board of Adjustment reviews. There being no further business. Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair l/h/uPeL Meribeth Wheatley, Recording /Secretary