The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2005-08-09RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting of the Estes Vaiiey Board of Adjustment August 9, 2005, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii Board: Attending: Aiso Attending: Absent: Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, and Wayne Newsom; Alternate Member Jeff Barker; one vacancy Chair Sager, Member Levine, Member Newsom, Alternate Barker Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Member Dill, one vacancy Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the July 12, 2005 meeting. 2. LOT B. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 21 & 22. BLOCK 7. COUNTRY CLUB MANOR ADDITION. 507 Driftwood Avenue. Applicant: Carl Ropp — Variance Request from Section 4. Table 4-2. of the Estes Valley Development Code, requiring a minimum ten-foot side-yard setback in the R - Residential zoning district Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. She stated that this is a request for a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2, of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow an addition to a residence to be built five feet from the northern property line and on the southern property line in lieu of the ten-foot setbacks required. The property is located in the R - Residential zoning district. The current deck on the rear of the residence would be removed and the addition built in the same location, extending the same amount as the current deck into the northern setback and an additional three feet into the southern setback. The proposed one-story addition would add 308 square feet to the existing 528-square-foot house. A smaller addition that complies with the setbacks could be built but could only be eight feet wide. The shape of the lot provides a very limited building area; the lot shape and location of the residence combine to create special circumstances and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the Code requirements. This request was sent to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjoining property owners for review and comment. No adjoining property owners have contacted staff to express concerns about the proposed variance. The owners of 505 Driftwood Avenue, the property immediately adjacent to the north, emailed staff on July 17, 2005 to express support for the requested variance. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed addition is similar in design to the existing house, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining property owners would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Public Comment: The applicant, Carl Ropp, was present. He stated the total width of the proposed addition will be fourteen feet. It follows the same elevations of the current residence and will not obstruct views from adjacent properties. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 August 9, 2005 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve a northern side-yard setback of five feet and a southern side-yard setback of zero feet in iieu of the required ten-foot setbacks, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one aiternate in attendance, one absent, and one vacancy. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. The owner shall obtain a maintenance easement from the property owner to the south prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. LOT 34. BLOCK 27. BONNIE BRAE ADDITION. 1200 Graves Avenue. Applicant: Graves Avenue Piaza. LLC — Variance Requests from Estes Vailey Deveiopment Code Section 4. Tabie 4-5. requiring a minimum 15-foot side-yard setback in the CO - Commercial Outivina zoning district, and from Section 7.13.B.2. requiring outdoor trash coliection to be located at the rear of a lot (formerly requested variances to the front- and rear-yard setback requirements were withdrawn bv the applicant) Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated the variance requests are being sought in conjunction with a variety of development applications for this property. It is the applicant’s intent to remove the existing cabins and build a new, two-story office building that would include an employee-housing unit. The proposal requires an amended plat, a rezoning request to rezone the cabin area from RM - Multi-Family Residential \o CO - Commercial Outlying, and a development plan. The proposed variance would allow a corner of the proposed office/residential building and a deck to be located 9.5 feet from the property line. The applicant has redesigned the deck to limit its encroachment and minimize the variance request. Additionally, the applicant requests a variance to allow a dumpster to be located in the side yard rather than the rear yard. Planner Shirk noted that parl^na and driveway requirements tend to push the building to one side of the lot, aKhough he building could be designed to meet the setback requirements. The area could be located at the rear of the lot, but would be less accessible to bu'ld' 9 occupants and trash-collection trucks. The lot is long and narrow but doss meet the minimum width requirements of the CO - Commercial Outlying zoning district so the SnTproof of special circum-stahces lies with the applicaht. It is the planning staff’s opinion that the variance requests are not substantial, that the existing character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and that adjoining p"es wol no9t su«er a substantial detriment. The applicant p^ns to erect a concrete fence along the eastern property line to deter recurring vandalism. This request was sent to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjoining property owners for review and comment. No significant issues or concer"s Lom^ed bv reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public se^S Comments received from Estes Park Sanitation District expressed concern about a sanitary sewer line that serves the property to the south, but noted the doesn’t appear^o extend through the area under consideration. 1 required to protect the line if it is located during excavation. s aff. als° comments from Joann McGill, who expressed general opposition to developmen Estes Park. ThraDSrcanTejnohn Lynch, was presenf. He stated the property was originaiiy one lot but had been divided and the southern portion rezoned because of the e”s'm9 Hi^rsrourdru^d3.0^^^^^^ - be used for offices with the exception of a second-floor apartment for an on-srte RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 9, 2005 property manager. He stated that he was comfortable with the recommended condition of approval that the variance be subject to approval of all other applicable development review proposals. Chair Sager stated his concern with reviewing the variance application prior to approval of the amended plat, rezoning, and development plan for the property. He also questioned whether the applicant had considered making the building smaller or moving it to the east to meet the side-yard setback requirements. Betty and Steve Nickel, the building designers, stated they had redesigned the building and had re-sized the rooms many times, attempting to minimize the variance request, and noted their objections to shortening that end of the building due to the effect it would have on the overall design of the building. Gerald Mayo, nearby property owner, spoke in support of the variance and requested the Board of Adjustment give him equal consideration if he made any future variance requests. There was discussion among the Board members, with Alternate Member Barker noting that additional CO-zoned property would be beneficial to the community. Member Newsom stating approval of the variance would not have an adverse effect on the property to the west because a parking lot exists on the portion of that property closest to the proposed new building, and Member Levine noting the total square footage of the proposed variance would be between twenty-five and thirty feet—a very small request. There was further discussion regarding whether the eastern setback requirement for landscaping could be reduced, allowing the building to be moved farther east, however, that would require a separate variance application. Member Levine stated his support of the proposed variance for the dumpster location, noting that it makes better sense than placing the dumpster at the back of the lot. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve a variance to allow the trash-collection area to be located in the side yard, with the .fmd,n9® conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one alternate in attendance, one absent, and one vacancy. It was also moved and seconded (Levine/Barker) to aPProve a ®ide-y^r .d setback of 9.5 feet for the new office buiiding in lieu of the fifteen feet required, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, a"d "\° passed unanimousiy with one aiternate in attendance, one absent, and one vacancy. CONDITIONS: . 1. Approval of all other applicable development review proposals. A DppORTS ■ Director Joseph announced that Member Horton has resigned Ns positions on the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment and Estes Valley Planning Commission due to professional commitments' He expressed apprecfetion for Mr. Horton's work on t^^^^ Board and wished him well. He noted that the County Commissioners office has been notified and is taking applications to fill Mr. Horton’s positions. There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Oon/^r P.hnir »Al Sager, Chair Julie'Roedererjderer/RecordingSSecretary