Alpine council approves exception allowing three linked accessory structures at 1473 East Box Elder Way

The Alpine City Council on April 22 unanimously approved an exception to the city's accessory-structure rules for property owners Ryan and (spouse) Arnold at 1473 East Box Elder Way, allowing three accessory structures and an overlying deck that together exceed the 200-square-foot threshold in the municipal code.

The action came after staff described the applicable setback rules and the code provision allowing Council to grant exceptions when certain conditions are met. The council approved the exception with conditions requiring the Arnolds to supply signed letters from utility holders and to build exactly as shown in the submitted plan: three structures not to exceed 489 square feet in combined building area and a total deck area not to exceed 742 square feet.

The exception was needed because the applicant proposed a deck covering three small structures; under current code the deck would cause the combined area to exceed the 200-square-foot limit that allows reduced setbacks. City staff explained the site is a corner lot in the Box Elder subdivision and that the rear property line borders city-owned flood-control land. Staff also said the proposal meets the city's height limits as changed from a prior larger plan.

Applicant Ryan Arnold told the council the yard slopes steeply and that the plan replaces an unattractive retaining-wall solution with a functional set of small buildings serving a pool and sport court. "From any neighbor, from the air, from anywhere else, it's gonna look pretty much the same," Arnold said, describing the visual effect of the revised, smaller structures.

City Attorney Steve Doxey advised the council that part of the proposed footprint falls inside a recorded public utility easement (PUE) on the plat, and that vacating or partially vacating that easement is a separate, formal step under city practice. Doxey noted council could grant the exception tonight but that staff typically requires written utility-holder concurrence and a subsequent resolution to vacate the PUE if necessary. Council added the utility-letter condition to the approval.

Council members who voted in favor reiterated that the applicant had substantially reduced the earlier proposal'which had required height and size exceptions'and that the revised plan addressed neighbors' concerns while preserving the site's usability. The motion as adopted directs the applicant to provide the utility notification letters and requires conformance to the plan shown to council.

The vote was unanimous: Kelly Law, Chrissy Hanneman, Jessica Smuin and Brent Rummler voted yes.

The council recorded no additional public hearing on the item; staff said no public hearing was required for this type of exception and noted one neighbor had called earlier in the day to register opposition based on view impacts.

The council's action allows the applicant to proceed with the project subject to the stated conditions and any additional permitting requirements.