HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-01-09BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
January 9,2001,8:00 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: Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording
Secretary Wheatley
Absent: None
Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
The minutes of the December 5,2000, meeting were accepted as
presented.
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) that Jeff Barker be nominated
for Chair and It passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) that Al Sager be nominated for
Vice-Chair and it passed unanimously.
A representative of the Community Development Office was appointed as
Recording Secretary.
3. 1577 DEVIL’S GULCH ROAD, APPLICANT- Nn S flND1 umgSr VAPIANCE ppohPST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-20FTHi
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
qpninr Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to
deviate from the 30-foot height standard to allow for a new residential bu' Jng deviate Trorn me ouiu y fall across the bui|ding
arfhe building is visuarseduded, and is removed from the
“e ?h"an existing dweiiing on the sfte that wiii need to be converted
to another use in order for a building permit to be issued.
sissiisss.
Planne/joLph advised that no comments were received from the neighbo .
Public Comment:
None.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
January 9,2001 Page 2
Sr. Planner Joseph reviewed a letter from Candace Phippen of the Larimer
County Building Department dated January 5, 2001, and recommended the
conditions contained in this letter be attached to any motion for granting the
variance. Chair Barker and Member Lamy noted that the conditions requested by
the County Building Department seemed extraordinary.
Based on the seclusion of the site and slope of the ground, it was moved
and seconded (Ball/Sager) to approve the variance request to allow a
maximum height of 38 feet in lieu of the 30-foot height limit as required in
the RE-1 Estate zoning district and it passed. Those voting yes: Lamy,
Sager, Newsom and Ball. Those voting no: Barker. 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.
RLQCK 7. WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5th FILING, 3464 EAGLECLjFE ------------ - --------—ni-i^LiT varianceHEIGHTPIENKOSZ -APPLICANT:.p^tpROM "sfCTON '4.3. TaBL ■= OF THE ESTES^MXEYCIRCLE
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from
the mandated 30-foot maximum height to allow a height of39 Jfet- 7^®
an averaae slope of 30%, and is similar in size and shape to other Windcliff lots.
The applicant intends to raise the ground level a few feet which will decrease the
LoresS the full height. No significant issues or concerns were expressed
bv reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. KSu“y be built on the site without the requested height vanance.
Other homes in the Windcliff Subdivision have been built with similar heights.
Thi/raouesUs not Lt of character with Windcliff as a whole, but may be out of
vicinity. Jh® P—
Alpin^Meado^Homeowners Association ArchitecturalConholCornrrttteetette^
Srecommended the ®PP'ic^nth'7mt°;e"?nd er^ opp s lon w^s
substantially above two .a^j®cenl homes. T^® "eCQ^menCiatlon
SHSSSSSrrss
height of the structure is 30 feet.
BrubceCJCohnsonn3460 Eaglecliff Circle Drive, spoke in opposition as it would
impede his view to the north.
storm drainage standards would apply.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
January 9,2001 Pages
Mr. Kochevar responded to the questions. The applicant is required by the
Homeowner’s Association to assure that the road or the neighboring property will
not be affected. This site is so close to the structure to the south that any
building would affect the view from that property. The reduction of the pitch of the
roof was discussed.
Based on the compromise to 35 feet and topography, position and size of
the iot, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance
request to aiiow a maximum height of 35 feet in iieu of the 30-foot height
limit as required in the E-1 Estate zoning district with the foiiowing
conditions and it passed unanimousiy. 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 A revised site plan showing the final height, finished floor elevations, grading
’ plan, and location shall be provided at the time of the building permit
application.
2. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. „
3. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors
4. E^eriorcolorsIS? be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding
hillside.
5* ^nk)?pianner Joseph reported on a revised way to calculate an adjusted height
limitation that is currently under discussion. Board members discussed variou
options and encouraged staff to proceed.
There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m.
Jeff‘Barker, Chair
:lu-hl ..
Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary