HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2005-09-13RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2005, 8:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board:Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, and Wayne
Newsom; Alternate Member Jeff Barker; one vacancy
Attending: Chair Sager; Members Dill, Levine, and Newsom; Alternate Barker
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer
Absent:None; one vacancy
Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. The following minutes reflect the
order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
a. The minutes of the August 2, 2005 meeting.
b. The minutes of the August 9, 2005 special meeting.
2. METES AND BOUNDS. 3965 Little Valiev Road. Applicant: Michael Bryant —
Variance Request from Section 4. Table 4-2. of the Estes Valley Development
Code, requiring a minimum fiftv-foot side-yard setback in the RE - Rural Estate
zoning district
Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated that this is a request for a
variance to Section 4, Table 4-2, of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a
forty-foot side-yard setback in the RE-Rural Estate zoning district for construction of
a new deck. The proposed deck would be five-feet wide by twenty-three-feet long.
Although the lot is slightly sub-sized for the RE zoning district, being two acres
instead of the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, it meets the minimum lot-width
requirement of the RE district. The lot width is the pertinent dimensional standard for
side-yard setback requests. The home was built in 1952, prior to the implementation
of setback requirements, and the northwest corner of house is approximately forty-
three feet from the property line, based on a site plan prepared by Van Horn
Engineering and Surveying. At the time the applicant purchased the Pr0P®l^y ^
1990 the zoning was E-Estate, which also required side-yard setbacks of fifty feet.
Planner Shirk stated the building on the adjoining lot that would be nearest to the
deck is a storage shed located more than 100 feet away; therefore, the intent of the
fifty-foot setbacks would be met. The essential character of the neighborhood would
not be substantially altered.
The home has a sliding-glass door opening onto the area where the deck is
proposed. Staff consulted with Chuck Harris of the Larimer Cou"ty
Department and determined the building code requires stair landings and stairs to be
at least 36-inches wide. It is the opinion of planning staff that a three-foot-wide de
is not functional; staff supports the requested five-foot-wide deck.
The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent
property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns
were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of
public services. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery Pu^'c
services such as water and sewer. A letter of objection was received from Ima
Matthies of the Little Valley Owners’ Association.
Planner Shirk noted that the applicant has a long history of obtaining bui'dJ]]9
permits and not completing the work in a timely manner, leading to conflict with the
neighbors. The final recommended condition of approval, which Proh,b'J^
issuance of additional building permits until the deck has passed the final building
inspection, i^meant to address this concern. Planning staff and the applicant would
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 6, 2005
work together to alter the condition if an emergency situation, such as a water heater
going out, were to occur in the meantime.
Chair Sager noted the appiicant’s statement of intent refers to a deck five-feet long
by 8.5-feet wide, while the site plan shows a five-foot by twenty-three-foot deck.
Pianner Shirk stated Mr. Bryant had changed his request to increase the length of
the deck but had not updated his statement of intent. The mailing to neighbors was
sent a second time to notify them of the changed request.
Public Comment:
Stan Matsunaka of Clark Williams and Matsunaka, LLC was present to represent the
applicant. He stated it was apparent the board felt Mr. Bryant’s original request of a
12 X 36-foot deck was substantial when they denied the request at the July meeting_
He advised Mr. Bryant to scale back the proposal and noted the current P^nJ°r ^ ^
X 23-foot deck is very small and would not impact the neighborhood. It is not feasible
to add a deck to any other part of the home and it isn't possibie to mihgate the
appfcant's diffiouity other than to request a variance He stated the proposed
conditions of approval are very reasonable and recommended their approve.
Discussion among the Board of Adjustment members and planning staff ensued
concerning Te of thTproposed deck as an emergency exit, whether the deck would
haw been included in any previous building permits, and whether the app leant s
hS^^rv ol zoning code violations should be considered. Director Joseph noted the
deck should be9viewed as an amenity for the house, not as an en^|e,r9e™:^ ®x'_
Planner Shirk stated all former building permits have been finalized and there are no S zoning^ccKfe violations on this tot. Director Joseph clarified that one option
fnr enforcement of zoning code violations is to deny an applicant access to the
igfgsS'i
have any bearing on the proceedings.
the current Town regulations are based on install the door with the
it was possible the applicant had beenflowed ^
ima Matthias, president of the Little ValteV “j^lnotog^staffs
stated that although the association ^o^tupportlhe variance request. She
Bryant's history of unc0J^h ®t®dXh(Juah'the owners' association does not support
the,vartoncre as9requSed, the/could sU9pport a three-footjide landing and stairs to
provide egress while meeting the building code requirements.
William Conger, 1792 Hummingbird Jon Syphej,
Hanchett, 1640 Black Squirrel ^.ve, stated td®'rB°dlaen" from the
residential community. Mr. Conger ag h Dermit for the deck be limited
he would support the variance request.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
September 6, 2005
Member Levine stated the applicant appears to have heeded the statements made
at the July Board of Adjustment meeting, and has finalized outstanding permits and
requested a variance that will have the least impact. Alternate Member Barker noted
that a five-foot-wide deck is not very large and stated his support of the variance
request. Member Newsom stated that having the survey done allows the Board to
see exactly what the encroachment is, noting the deck would only encroach into the
setback an additional three feet beyond the corner of the house.
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve a side-yard setback
of forty feet in lieu of the required fifty-foot setbacks, with the findings and
conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with
one vacancy.
CONDiTIONS:
1. Full compliance with applicable building codes.
2. Submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor,
which verifies compliance with the approved variance. This setback certificate
shall be available on-site for the building official at the footing inspection. A
copy of this setback certificate shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to final inspection.
3. No additional building permits shall be issued until the deck has been
completed and the final building permit inspection finalized.
3. REPORTS
None.
There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:48 a.m.
Al Sager, Chair
Julie/Roederer,yRecording Secretary