Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2011-01-04 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 4, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Bob McCreery, John Lynch, Chuck Levine, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair Newsom, Members McCreery, Lynch, Smith Also Attending: Interim Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Levine Chair Newsom 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. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes of the December 7, 2010 meeting. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Smith) to approve the minutes with the typographical error corrected, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. b. Request to continue the variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision), 255 Cyteworth Road, James and Nancy Gunter/Applicants It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Lynch) to continue the variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates, 255 Cyteworth Road, to the next regularly scheduled meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. TRACT A, JOYNER AMENDED MINOR LAND DIVISION OF THE BROUN MINOR LAND DIVISION S-117-87, 251 BAKER DRIVE, PID 34111-07-701 Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property owner is Lorie Bond. The applicant, Thomas Beck, has requested a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 30-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE–Rural Estate zone district for construction of a proposed attached garage. This property is adjacent to parcels zoned A-1–Accommodationon the north and west, and RE–Rural Estate on the east and south. In determining whether special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to other areas of buildings similarly situated, staff finds that at 1.6 acre, the lot is small for the RE–Rural Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This lot is closer to the E-1–Estate district, which has setbacks of 25-feet, If this property were zoned E-1, the proposed garage would not require a variance. The dwelling was built in 1957, and is located entirely within the 50-foot setback. There is an access easement, and the current setback is 50-feet from that easement. The existing water line and septic field restricts building locations. Staff has determined that the proposed location for the attached garage is the best placement for the structure. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 4, 2011 In looking at whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, staff suggested the neighborhood and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment. Staff routed the application to reviewing agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant issues or concerns were expressed. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. Staff received correspondence from one property owner to the south, who supported the variance request. Planner Shirk stated the applicant acquired the property in January 2010 with the current setback requirements. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff and Board Member Discussion Member Smith inquired about the drainage design that would prevent water from going into the proposed garage. Public Comment Thomas Beck/Applicant stated a half-height concrete wall would be built on the west side of the addition to deter drainage. An area drain under a portion of the garage would also provide for adequate drainage. He displayed construction plans that show a shorter garage than originally proposed. The existing garage would be converted into a game room, and the existing driveway would be used. Phil Bond, representing the owner, reviewed the history of the property, stating the improvement would allow them to better utilize the property now and for future generations. Conditions 1. Compliance with the submitted site plan and building design 2. Submittal of a signed and stamped setback certificate from a registered land surveyor prior to final inspection. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch) to approve the variance request for Tract A, Joyner Amended Minor Land Division of the Broun Minor Land Division S-117-87, with the findings and conditions recommended by Staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. METES AND BOUNDS (A PORTION OF BLOCK 10, TOWN OF ESTES PARK), 230 BIG HORN DRIVE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property owners are Tom and Katie Hochstetler. The applicant has requested a variance from EVDC Section 4-3, Table 4-2, which requires 15-foot front setbacks and 10-foot rear setbacks from property lines in the RM–Multi-Family Residential zone district. The original request was to allow a 9.7-foot encroachment into the front setback and a 3.5-foot encroachment into the rear setback to construct a proposed attached 22-foot by 22-foot garage on the northeast corner of the existing dwelling. Since the application was submitted, the applicant revised the plan in order to increase the setback from the edge of the pavement. The revised setback variance request stated a 5-foot encroachment into the front setback and a 6-foot encroachment into the rear setback. The property is located at 230 Big Horn Drive, just north of Boyd Lane. In determining whether special circumstances or conditions exist, Staff has determined the lot the lot size is 0.19 acres, which does not meet the minimum lot size for the RM zone district. The shape of the lot does not allow for construction on the southern end, making any expansion difficult. The existing 9-foot wide garage would be converted to a workshop. Planner Shirk also noted the proposed garage is two feet shorter and two feet narrower than the typical two-car garage size. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 4, 2011 In determining practical difficulty, Staff suggested the current garage is somewhat of a traffic hazard because it backs out directly onto Big Horn Drive. The proposed garage would access off of the alley on the north, alleviating the traffic hazard. Planner Shirk stated that staff has determined there would be no substantial detriment or alteration to the neighborhood. The neighbors most affected by the proposal are supportive of the request. The application was routed to reviewing agencies and adjacent property owners for comment. It was determined there would be no adverse affect on public services and water. Estes Park Light and Power requested an easement for the overhead power line. Staff would request that this easement be granted prior to the issuance of the building permit. Staff determined that existing fencing along the north property line would need to be removed to comply with sight visibility triangle requirements. Staff received correspondence from two property owners. One specifically stated support for the project, while the other was an inquiry about the application. Staff recommended approval to allow a north setback of 5-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required, and an eastern rear yard setback of 6-feet in lieu of the 10-foot setback required, with four conditions. Planner Shirk stated there was a current violation of an approved development plan at a location owned by Mr. Hochstetler, and the building permit for the proposed garage would not be issued until that code violation was resolved. Staff and Board Member Discussion When asked by Member McCreery, Planner Shirk stated the utility easement could be altered or abandoned if the power line was buried; however, he did not believe the applicant had plans to do this. Member Lynch inquired about floor area ratio (FAR) as it pertains to a lot. Planner Shirk stated that while the RM zone district does require FAR, it does not apply to single-family dwellings. Public Comment Celine LeBeau/Applicant stated she met on site with Light and Power employees, who requested a five-foot easement along the east property line. She stated the applicant has agreed to dedicate the new easement. The applicant desires to construct the garage due to the small size of the existing garage. The proposed size and location was submitted due to grading and setback issues at the location of the existing garage. Ms. LeBeau has discussed the visibility triangle requirements with the Hochstetlers. Ms. LeBeau stated the existing driveway on Big Horn Drive would not be regularly used as a parking space. Greg Rosener/Adjacent property owner was supportive of the variance request. He commended the Hochstetlers for what they have done with their property. Mr. Rosener disagreed with the code compliance issue preventing the issuance of the building permit. Member McCreery was supportive of the request, and encouraged other similar projects that improve neighborhoods in Estes Park. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering inquired about the resolution of the code violation. Planner Shirk mentioned the code violation as a reminder to the property owner that it would need to be resolved prior to the issuance of the building permit for the proposed garage. For clarification, it was not a condition of approval for the variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 January 4, 2011 Conditions 1. Compliance with site plan and building design. 2. Dedicated 5-foot overhead utility easement prior to issuance of a building permit. The property owner/applicant was directed to contact the Light and Power Department to resolve this issue. 3. Prior to final inspection, all site visibility standards shall be met. 4. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide a signed and stamped setback certificate. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Smith) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds parcel (a portion of Block 10, Town of Estes Park) located at 230 Big Horn Drive with the findings and conditions recommended by Staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. REPORTS The Board members requested to have the Information Technology Department determine and fix the problem with the monitors on the dais. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. ___________________________________ Wayne Newsom, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary