Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2013-05-07 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 7, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Members Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, Jeff Moreau, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending: Chair Lynch, Members McCreery, Newsom, Smith, and Moreau Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 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 November 6, 2012 meeting. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. COURTYARD SHOPS, METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 165 Virginia Drive Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated the request was for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of eight (8) feet from the front property line in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district. The applicant desired to encroach approximately four (4) feet into the setback to construct a 25 square foot fire riser room addition. Director Chilcott stated the Courtyard Shops were constructed in the 1980s, and recently purchased by a new owner. The applicant is working with the Division of Building Safety to bring the building into compliance with the building codes. There are a number of unpermitted residential units in the building. One of the requirements is an automatic fire sprinkler system. The sprinkler system installation requires a dedicated room for the fire riser. Director Chilcott stated it might be possible to create a room inside the existing small garage, but having it outside the building would be more practical. The riser room would be four feet into the setback, and would have no adverse impact on the existing sidewalk. Director Chilcott stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Comments were received from the Chief Building Official (memo dated May 1, 2013), Estes Park Water Division staff (memo dated May 2, 2013), and the Fire Marshal (memo dated April 30, 2013). Staff Findings 1. The location of the water line/tap serving the Courtyard Shops building was determined with the Virginia Drive paving project last year. At that time the Town installed a new water service line/tap in anticipation of the need to upsize service into the building. 2. Installation of the sprinkler system has a significant positive impact on building use. The illegal residential units can become legal units and as businesses change in the future, the sprinkler system provides more flexibility for uses of individual rental spaces and to change uses in the future. 3. The variance is not substantial. The eight-foot minimum setback allows for sidewalks and pedestrian access in the downtown area. The adjacent sidewalk on Virginia Drive and pedestrian traffic will not be adversely impacted. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 7, 2013 4. The sprinkler system will reduce risk of fire spreading to adjacent properties and is, therefore, a benefit to adjacent properties. Building safety will be significantly improved with installation of the sprinkler system. 5. The applicant purchased the property in 2013 with knowledge of the setbacks. 6. Per code, a room must be dedicated solely for use as the riser room. The garage was considered as an option, but it contains mechanical equipment and electrical panels. 7. The variance represents the least deviation that will afford relief. The room is small at just 25 square feet. The Division of Building Safety has received the building permit application and verified the distance from the property line. As long as the fire riser room is built according to the plan, a setback certificate would not be required. There was brief discussion as to the conditions of the residential units. Director Chilcott and Chief Building Official Birchfield inspected the units in August, 2012. CBO Birchfield continues to work with the new owner to bring the building into compliance. The owner is making all the necessary improvements. Public Comment None. Staff and Board Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery ) to approve the variance request as presented with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. LOT 15, LITTLE VALLEY 1st FILING, 1634 Black Squirrel Drive Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant currently has a home under construction at this address, and he has requested a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 to allow a front yard setback of 20 feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE–Rural Estate zone district. The applicant desires to add a two-car attached garage, with a finished room above. Planner Shirk explained the minimum building setback line is 25 feet from the property line, which in this case is the center line of the platted ‘road’ easement. In addition to this setback, there is a 25 foot minimum setback from the edge of the road. The road was not constructed entirely in the easement. Planner Shirk stated the triangle-shaped lot created a very small building envelope. To construct the garage within the building envelope, a 10-15 foot foundation would be required, due to the slope of the lot. In addition, the compliant garage would be more visible from the road than if constructed in the proposed location. The proposed location has already been excavated for the driveway. Planner Shirk stated the 1.6 acre lot is small for the RE-Rural Estate zone district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Little Valley has 50-foot setbacks intended to keep structures separated. Planner Shirk stated the nearest home is 200 horizontal feet and 40 vertical feet away. Discussion occurred among the Board and staff regarding the measurement of setbacks when right- of-ways are involved. Director Chilcott clarified how the setback was measured. Planner Shirk stated the Little Valley Home Owners Association initially opposed the variance request, but after meeting with the applicant now supports the project and the request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 May 7, 2013 Staff Findings 1. This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 8. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 9. Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Public Comment Greg Westley/applicant purchased lot in 2008 knowing the setbacks were tight. The home under construction has a basic rectangular footprint, and no garage was planned. Mr. Westley was approached by potential buyers who desire to have an attached garage. If the garage were shifted to the back of the home, extensive excavation would be required. The road encroaches into the lot, which minimizes the distance from the road to the dwelling. He did not meet with the HOA prior to submitting the variance application. However, he did meet with them prior to the Board of Adjustment meeting, explained the project, and they are now in support of the variance request. Staff and Member Discussion Member Newsom toured the site, and was supportive of the request. Member McCreery concurred with Member Newsom. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, surveyor shall submit Surveyors Setback Certificate (available in Community Development Department) that verifies compliance with approved site plan. 3. Exterior lighting shall be subject to review and approval of staff. Fixtures shall minimize direct glare on off-site properties. This condition shall apply to exterior lighting on the main structure as well as the garage addition. Planner Shirk stated due to the location of the garage, staff recommended exterior lighting be completely shielded from the side and top to minimize neighborhood impact. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the variance request as presented with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS This being the first meeting of 2013 for this Board, new officers needed to be elected. Director Chilcott stated the Chair shall be a Town resident, and the Vice Chair shall be a County resident. Member Newsom nominated Member Moreau for Chair. Member Lynch nominated Member McCreery to serve as Vice Chair. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 May 7, 2013 It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Smith) to elect Members Moreau and McCreery to the positions of Chair and Vice Chair, respectively. Director Chilcott stated staff recommended having regular meetings to approve the minutes of the previous meeting, even when there are no other applications on the agenda. This would avoid a long delay in distributing approved minutes to the public when variance applications throughout the year are few. There was general consensus among the Board to meet as needed to approve the minutes from previous meetings. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary