HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2005-05-03RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
May 3, 2005, 8:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Board:
Attending:
Chair Al Sager, Members Cliff Dill, Bill Horton, Chuck Levine,
Wayne Newsom, and Alternate Jeff Barker
Chair Sager, Members Levine, Newsom, and Barker
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording
Secretary Roederer
Absent:Member Dill, Member Horton
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 February 1,2005 meeting.
2. LOT 11, FOX RIDGE ESTATES. 2185 Ridge Road, Applicant: Jack and Sharvn
Gartner — Variance Request from Section 4, Table 4-2, of the Estes Valiev
Development Code
Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated that this is a request for a
variance to Table 4-2, “Base Density and Dimensional Standards,” of the Estes
Valley Development Code to allow a south side-yard setback of thirty-five feet in lieu
of the fifty-foot setback required. The applicant would like to build a two-story
addition on the southeast end of the house for a master bedroom and two-car
garage. The home was built in 1971, prior to the establishment of setback
requirements; although it was located legally on the 2.5-acre property at the time it
was built, the home is currently legally nonconforming. Although the addition could
be built on another portion of the house, it would require extensive remodeling,
including moving the fireplace and reconfiguring the kitchen. Planner Shirk noted
that the applicants redesigned the proposed addition to minimize the variance
request and its impact on the neighborhood. He recommended that the applicants
have a setback survey completed to ensure they meet the requirements of the
requested variance.
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public
services. The Light and Power Department noted that the transformer may need to
be upgraded if the heat source is electric, and the Larimer County Health
Department requested that connection to Upper Thompson Sanitation District be a
condition of approval. The request was also submitted to adjacent property owners
for consideration and comment. Two neighbors, Robert Dull and Reed Smedley,
called to inquire about the variance but expressed no concerns.
The applicant, Sharyn Gartner, was present. Member Levine questioned what would
be done with the current garage door. Mrs. Gartner stated the present garage would
be closed off and converted into a workroom with a standard exterior door and
window.
Public Comment:
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
May 3, 2005
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the requested
variance to allow a south side-yard setback of thirty-five feet, with the findings
and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimousiy
with two absent and one aiternate in attendance.
CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a
registered land surveyor.
Compliance with the approved site plan.
Connection to Upper Thompson Sanitation District sanitary sewer is required.
The applicant shall contact the Light and Power Department prior to building
permit application.
3- LOT 11, SPANIER SUBDIVISION. Amended Lot 6 and a Portion of the E V2 of the
IlE 14 of Section 34, T5N, R73W. 1700 Highway 66. Applicant: New Soall. LLC —
^riance Requests from Section 1.9.D.2, Development Setbacks from River and
^ream Corridors, Section 7.6.F.1, Prohibited Activities, and Section 7.fi.n
preservation of Vegetation, of the Estes Valley PeveloDmerit Code 1
anner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated that the property has a range
Qr.adcceSxi!S: the portlon under consideration for the variance is located at 1738
spur 66. The property consists of 2.4 acres in the A-Accommodations zoning district
plan dated May 2, 2005 for redesion oMhp Jn aPP,'9ar|t submitted a revised site
the neighboring Griffith cabin. 9 th P6 stab,llzat,on and drainage next to
aTSaVenrpmph^^^^^^^^^^^ viewing agency staff as well as
Engineering Department had a ' f comment. The Larimer County
floodplain, a review required by the Army Coras of?8 .related t0 working in the
holds. The Army Corps of Enoinear^ nnmniS 7 Engineers, and building permit
individual permit was not required for the proiecat 'n|spectlon: the7 stated that an
Department also gave their approval Bill Kirk whn n Larimer County Engineering
river from the applicant’s property and ,0cated acrosa the
with Planner Shirk and confirmed "haY th^nll 31 l0Cati0n Since 1972> v'a''tad
dumped garbage along the riverbank fnr h pr®vous owner the property had garbage and dirt flowe9d into ^tXer^ L °Ver that period 0
current work done to correct the probtem Atetterfrom^rtlfi?1! h'S apProval °> the
Lamb of Skyline Cottages, was received She stated mafS, h 2roperty owner' Sue
coristruction of the retaining wall but obieoted ^ad no objecli°h to thenot'd®tba'aba did notwanftosee theX^zedL^'alo9!theCvarinadncPeUmPh°USe'
the lower planting beds b’e^fenThrretXq w1iNsnbPlaI1ner Sh'rk recommended
and birch, species that are commonly found a?om r.^ 59 P anted Wlth wi,,ow, alder,
PpprerSpla<ntingearea*be'ptented wkh'wee^ tt
down the wall, thus providing a natural layer^"^Km^g'o^ermewls. W°Uld Cre8P
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
May 3, 2005
Planner Shirk noted that the property could not be put to beneficial use without some
type of slope stabilization, which requires a variance, and that the applicant’s
predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. He
stated that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be changed by the
granting of the variance.
Member Barker questioned whether the pumphouse and deck mentioned in Sue
Lamb’s letter were legal. Planner Shirk stated the he believed they had been in
place prior to current regulations and would therefore be legally nonconforming.
Member Levine clarified the the variance would in no way legitimize the existence of
the pumphouse and deck. Chair Sager questioned whether any requirements would
have been different had the variance request been presented sooner. Planner Shirk
stated that the emphasis would have been on minimizing the retaining wall but the
applicant had done a good job given the circumstances they encountered.
Leo Salazar was present to represent the applicant. New Spall, LLC, owner of the
property, as well as Beaver Brook Development Company, the developer of the
property. He stated the work was done in good faith without intention to act contrary
to the approved development plan or to usurp the Board of Adjustment powers. He
noted that the final plan submitted is the product of a series of discussions with the
neighboring property owners, the Griffiths, to mitigate their concerns. He also noted
that the questions regarding the pumphouse and deck raised by Sue Lamb had
been addressed with the development plan application. He stated that the
pumphouse does not contain any pump equipment and that the deck is solely for
recreational purposes.
Public Comment:
Mike Griffith, adjacent resident, was present. He presented a private agreement
signed by members of the Griffith family and Mr. Salazar and requested the Board of
Adjustment include the agreement in the conditions of approval. Director Joseph
stated that it is not the role nor the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to
enforce a private agreement. He offered to consider including any specific
statements from the agreement as conditions of approval but noted that a private
agreement could not be included in the variance solely by reference to the
agreement. He stated that the private agreement refers to the revised site plan
drawing presented by Mr. Salazar and questioned Mr. Griffith whether adoption of
the drawing as a condition of the variance would satisfy the needs of the Griffiths.
Mr. Griffith agreed that it would.
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the requested
variances, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the
motion passed unanimously with two absent and one alternate in attendance.
CONDITIONS:
1. Full compliance with applicable building codes.
2. Compliance with the submitted and approved site plan dated May 2, 2005.
3. Compliance with memo from Larimer County Engineering (Roxann Hayes) to
Dave Shirk, dated April 15, 2005, regarding floodplain issues. Corps of
Engineer’s issues, and building permit holds.
4. The applicant shall submit verification from a licensed engineer that the
retaining walls comply with the submitted site plan and that they were
designed and built in a structurally sound manner (e.g., support the proposed
buildings, allow proper drainage, etc.). This shall be submitted prior to
release of certificate of occupancy.
5. The upper planting area shall be planted with a creeping juniper. The lower
planting beds between the retaining walls shall be planted with willow, alder,
and birch.
6. The approved development plan shall be amended to account for
landscaping and grading plan changes and shall be subject to review and
approval by Larimer County Engineering Department. This shall be
submitted and approved prior to the issuance of the next building permit.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
May 3, 2005
4. REPORTS
Planner Chilcott reported on Whyard variance, which was approved by the Board of
Adjustment on January 4, 2005 for the property at 189 and 191 East Riverside Drive.
She noted that although the variance was approved for the installation of three
outdoor tables with a small amount of concrete under the tables, the entire back
area had been paved because of drainage problems. In the CD-Commercial
Downtown zoning district, lots may be covered up to 100%. No vegetation was
removed; the area was dirt.
The property owner, Paul Whyard, was present. He stated that the plans originally
submitted with the variance request accurately reflected his intentions at the time. As
the process evolved, numerous requirements by various departments had to be met,
including establishing grading for the entire property, which resulted in paving of the
area approved for the variance granted in January. Member Newsom stated that Mr.
Whyard had done a nice job making the property more attractive.
There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:49 a.m.
AI Sager, Chair
^^Xluljei:loeder^Recordin^ Secretary