Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2010-11-02RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1 November 2, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 2, 2010, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Bob McCreery, Members John Lynch, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair McCreery, Members Levine, Newsom, Lynch, and Moreau Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Smith Chair McCreery 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 AGENDA a. Approval of minutes of the October 5, 2010 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. PORTION OF LOT 9, MOUNT VIEW PARK SUBDIVISION, 250 GRANITE LANE – Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25-foot setbacks from property lines in the E-1–Estate zone district. Request to allow an eight (8) foot encroachment into the side setback and a five (5) foot encroachment into the front setback to construct an addition to the existing dwelling. Staff Report: Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The property is adjacent to MacGregor Ranch, and is accessed from Evergreen Lane. The property is in the E-1 Estate zone district. Adjacent properties to the south, east, and west are zoned E-1 Estate, while MacGregor Ranch is zoned RE-1 Rural Estate. There are a few properties in the neighborhood zoned R-2 Two-Family Residential and RM-Multi-Family Residential. She stated the first request is to allow an encroachment into the side setback for construction of a proposed partially- covered second-floor deck 17 feet from the east property line, with an eave extending an additional one and one-half feet. There is an existing concrete pad below the proposed deck that would be extended approximately two feet. There is a second variance request to remove and replace a covered entryway that is currently 20 feet from the northern property line. In reviewing variance requests, Staff and the Board of Adjustment review for compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 November 2, 2010 Chapter 3.6.C. The applicant must demonstrate that special circumstances exist on the property and also that there is practical difficulty in complying with the setbacks. Staff recommends the Board use their best judgment in determining whether these special factors exist. The lot is 0.34 acre, which is undersized for the E-1– Estate zone district (one acre). This lot would be more suited to the E–Estate zone district, which has a one-half acre minimum lot size and 10-foot side yard setbacks. The existing dwelling was built in 1977, prior to the establishment of the EVDC setbacks. The property was originally zoned R-2–Multi-Family Residential and setbacks from all property lines were ten feet. Planner Chilcott stated there were a number of factors to consider in determining practical difficulty. The property could have beneficial use as a single-family dwelling without the variance. Planner Chilcott recommended the Board use their best judgment in determining whether or not the variance was substantial. A typical factor to review is if the applicant is requesting a reduction in setbacks more than the setbacks in place prior to the EVDC. Another factor to consider is whether or not the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or the neighboring property owners would suffer a substantial detriment by this variance. The adjacent dwelling nearest to the location of the variance is approximately 120 feet downhill and screened by trees. After routing the application, there was no opposition from utility providers. Prior to the meeting, one neighboring property owner expressed opposition to this request. The current owner purchased the property in 2008, after the 25-foot setbacks were in place, indicating there was knowledge of the setbacks. The applicant received a copy of an Improvement Location Certificate prepared in 1995, when side the setback was 10 feet, and was under the impression that the minimum setback was 10 feet. In determining whether there are alternatives in lieu of the variance, staff determined the existing entryway roof could be maintained rather than replaced, and would not require a variance request. The proposed deck could be narrowed, not built at all, or moved to a different location in lieu of the variance request. Staff recommended the Board use their best judgment in determining whether or not to approve the request. Planner Chilcott stated the two requests could be voted on separately, if desired. If approved, Staff recommended two conditions of approval: 1) compliance with the application; and 2) a Colorado registered land surveyor provide the Town with a stamped setback certificate prior to the deck pier inspection. Board and Staff Discussion: After questions from the Board, it was determined that 1) a new home could be built on the property directly east of the applicant’s dwelling only if the existing dwelling were removed; 2) there would be an extension of approximately two feet to the concrete pad underneath the proposed deck; and 3) it would be possible to extend the deck to the south without requesting a variance. Public Comment: Michael Childs/Applicant stated the original location of the dwelling on the lot created an automatic setback violation when the zone district was changed. He stated the 25-foot setback on the small lot was unrealistic. He stated the entryway roof needed to be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 November 2, 2010 replaced due to a poor design, and it would not be feasible to change the location of the proposed deck. The concrete slab would be extended to make it functional. John Tormalehto/Town Resident lives in the neighborhood and was concerned about possible existing access easements. Planner Chilcott researched the subdivision plat, noting that Granite Lane was platted right-of-way when Mount View Park subdivision was created in 1910. Director Joseph explained the process used for rezoning property in the Estes Valley done in conjunction with the implementation of the EVDC in 2000. Doug Gertsch/Contractor stated the improvements to the existing dwelling would give it more of a “mountain” look. Mark Magnuson/Town resident represented Mrs. Joan Magnuson/adjacent property owner. He stated Mrs. Magnuson was in favor of making improvements to the property, but opposed to the encroachment into the setback. He asked for clarification on the amount of the encroachment into the front setback. He was concerned that a property owner could enclose the area covered by the concrete slab without obtaining a variance approval. Planner Chilcott explained that typically once you have an encroachment into the setback, other improvements within that encroachment would require additional approvals. She stated enclosure of the deck would be significant enough to warrant an additional variance application. In terms of the occupancy, if the area under the proposed deck were to be enclosed, Planner Chilcott stated it would not change the number of individuals that could occupy the home. Mr. Magnuson stated that any future development on Mrs. Magnuson’s lot could result in more crowding on the west side of her lot. Planner Chilcott and Director Joseph agreed that, if approved, the variance would only apply to what has been submitted and reviewed in this application. However, any property owner retains the right to obtain a variance in the future. Planner Chilcott emphasized that when an application is received, it is typical to review all past history and conditions of approval on the property prior to making any recommendations to the Board. Chair McCreery asked for more information from the public in attendance as to how this variance would damage the neighborhood and affect property values for adjacent property owners. Patrick Losee/Town resident was opposed to the variance request. Mark Magnuson was in favor of improvements to the dwelling, but thought they should be completed within the setbacks. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the variance request for the five-foot encroachment in to the front setback with findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Moreau) to approve the variance request for the eight-foot encroachment into the side setback, with the variance limited specifically to the plans proposed in the variance application with findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. Comments from the Board included: support for the motion because the dwelling was already encroaching into the 25-foot setbacks; no substantial detriment to adjacent property owners. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 November 2, 2010 4. REPORTS Director Joseph announced his upcoming retirement, stating his last day will be December 3, 2010. He expressed thanks to the Board and wished them success in the future. There being no further business, Chair McCreery adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m. ___________________________________ Bob McCreery, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary