Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2000-12-05BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000,8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Senior Planner Joseph, Planner Shirk, Chief Building Official Birchfield and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the November 7,2000, meeting were accepted as corrected. The second on the motion for Item 6 was changed to Wayne Newsom. 2. LOT 37. WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLACE. APPLICANT: EDWARD O’DELL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTIONS 5.2.C.2.af2) (c) AND (3) fa) OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The code requires that individual dwelling units used for employee housing shall not exceed 800 square feet of gross floor area. The special circumstance is the existing accessory structure that Is located on the property which has 964 square feet. The code also allows for one unit of employee housing per 2,250 square feet of gross floor area of the principal use. The existing service station building is approximately 1320 square feet which is 930 square feet under the required minimum. The accessory structure has been used for office purposes in the past and it does not lend itself to expansion of the principal use on the site. Also, it is staff opinion that granting this variance will not have the effect of impairing the intent of the code. A prior development plan required the planting of spruce trees along the street frontage. It was recommended that this be completed at this time. Mr. O’Dell, the applicant, had nothing further to add and thanked the Board for its consideration. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow an employee housing unit in an existing office-storage building on the site with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Standards. Employee housing shall be subject to the following development and operational standards: a) Dwelling units used for employee housing shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Code. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2000 Page 2 b) A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each unit of employee housing, in addition to the required parking for the principal use or business. c) Employee housing shall be occupied only by the owner, operator, caretaker or an employee of the principal use, plus his or her immediate family. d) Employee housing shall not be occupied or rented for a term of tenancy less than thirty (30) days. e) Employee housing shall not be rented to the general public (non- employees) for accommodation or residential purposes, except that where employee housing has been provided for a seasonal summer work force, such housing may be used for residential purposes only (not accommodations) during the off-season with approval of Staff. 2. Restrictive Covenant Required. a) Employee housing units provided pursuant to this Section shall be deed- restricted for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years to assure the availability of the unit for long-term occupancy only by employees of the principal business use (that is, owners or employees of the service station business). Such restriction shall include a prohibition of short-term rentals (less than 30 days) and/or rentals to the general public of the unit. b) Removal of the covenant shall require approval of the applicable Board and shall require a finding of exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship if the restrictions are not removed. c) The mechanism used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney. 3. All life-safety issues, as determined by the Chief Building Official, shall be brought into compliance as for new construction. 4. The spruce trees shall be planted along the street frontage as per the prior Development Plan approval. LOT 3. BLOCK 6. WINDCLIFF ESTATES SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: EUNICE WILSON - SETBACK VARIANCE AND HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 25-foot front yard setback to allow a setback of 10 feet and to allow a height of 38 feet in lieu of the 30-foot maximum imposed by the Estes Valley Development Code. The lot has an average slope of 30%, has a varied width, and contains some mature trees. These factors combine to create a buildable space which lies outside the zoned building setback lines and a slope that loses 13 feet of elevation across the run of the house. The original setback request was for 12.5 feet. After conferral with the Larimer County Wildfire Safety Coordinator, this request has been modified, at the suggestion of Staff, as an effort to comply with the UBC defensible space requirements. The Larimer County Wildfire Safety Coordinator has indicated the need to address space requirements of the adopted Larimer County Building Code. These comments are related to the preservation of a mature Ponderosa Pine. A one-story house may be built on the site without the requested height variance, but it would require the removal of three mature trees. Other homes in the Windcliff Subdivision have been built with similar heights. This request is not out of character with the surrounding development. The proposed location is behind three mature Ponderosa Pine trees, which would provide screening from downhill. The applicant purchased the property in November of 1999. The 25- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2000 Page 3 foot setback and 30-foot height restrictions were implemented in February of 2000. It is the opinion of the architect this is the minimum height that would allow for a typical two-story structure. The requested setback variance is the minimum that would allow for the preservation of a mature Ponderosa Pine. The Wildfire Safety Coordinator has indicated that with the reduced setback of 10 feet, the Ponderosa Pine and proposed structure would not meet the 10-foot separation requirements as set forth in Section 7.7.E.2. Therefore, approval of the requested setback variance should include a variance to Section 7.7.E.2. Approval should include the following conditions, as specified by the Wildfire Safety Coordinator: • The western exterior shall consist of one-hour fire-rated material. • The removal of additional vegetation shall be required as per the Wildfire Safety Coordinator deems appropriate, including but not limited to the removal of the 18-inch Ponderosa Pine identified on the site plan. • No exterior decking shall be allowed on the western fagade of the structure. Thomas Beck was present representing the applicant. The request is based on the desire to preserve about 4 trees. The driveway would also require a large cut up the side of the mountain without the variance. If the 10-foot defensible area noted by the Wildfire Safety Coordinator cannot be met, the alternate provisions of the UBC would be implemented. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings and for the preservation of the trees, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a front yard setback of 10 feet in lieu of the 25 foot requirement and to allow a maximum height of 38 feet in lieu of the 30-foot height limit as required in the E-1 Estate zoning district with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Non-reflective building material shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). 3. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend In with the surrounding hillside. 4. Compliance with any requests from the Wildfire Safety Coordinator (specifically relating to the preservation of the mature Ponderosa Pine), as discussed above. Should the architect be unable to achieve the 10-foot defensible space as required by the EVDC, a variance to Section 7.7.E.2.a shall be granted with this motion. 4. LOTS 4 & 22. BLOCK 9. COUNTRY CLUB MANOR. APPLICANTS: RONALD & PATRICIA KAYNE - SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM EVDC SECTION 1.9.D.1 .b (FEATURES ALLOWED WITHIN BUILDLING SETBACKS) Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of stairs and landing to the building entries on two separate lots, both owned by the applicant. A practical difficulty exists due to the narrowness of the lot relative to the size and position of the existing BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5,2000 Page 4 Structure. They are requesting the allowable setback be increased from 3 feet to 6 feet. Chief Building Official Birchfield advised that a surveyor’s setback certificate has been provided for both lots. Bill Van Horn represented the applicant. Historically in Country Club Manor decks and patios have been allowed all the way to the property line. County Club Manor is 95% developed and applying the new standards to the last few sites does not improve or change the appearance of the neighborhood. Public Comment: None. Due to the narrowness of the lot, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve the variance to allow for the construction of stairs and landing within the side setback per the submitted plan and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 5. LOT 3. VENNER RANCH ESTATES. 2nd FILING. APPLICANTS: EDWARD & BARBARA NELSON - HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicants wish to deviate from the 30-foot maximum height to allow a height of 38 feet for the construction of a new single-family residential structure. Based on environmental factors, the proposed building site appears to have the least environmental impact on the lot. While there are environmental conditions that combine to create a least sensitive area to build on, these features are not necessarily significant enough to create a practical difficulty resulting from the strict compliance with the 30-foot height requirement. The requirement was in place when the applicant purchased the property In March, 2000. It is not anticipated the proposed structure would interfere with neighboring view corridors or change the essential character of the neighborhood. All utilities are In place and approval of the requested variance would not affect delivery of public services. A height conforming home could be built on the site. One method of achieving height conformance would be to include a hip roof, which could run parallel to the 30-foot height limit. This option would have an effect on the internal structure of the house. The applicant, Edward Nelson, advised that the plans were drawn by an architect from Winter Park, formerly from Fort Collins, who designed the house based on his knowledge of the former Larimer County development code which had a 40 foot height limitation. Board Member Newsom suggested that a memo from staff be sent to local realtors pointing out the 30-foot height limitation. Other Board members expressed concern that the topography did not warrant an extra height limit. Public Comment: None. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2000 Page 5 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the height variance request to allow for a height of 38 feet as per the submitted plan with the following conditions and it passed. Those voting yes: Sager, Newsom and Ball. Those voting no: Lamy and Barker. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Full compliance with the Unified Building Code. 2. Compliance with the submitted site plan and elevation drawings. 1810 WINDHAM LANE. DUNRAVEN HEIGHTS. APPLICANTS: HAROLD & GINNIE HAUNSCHILD - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 50-foot front yard setback within the “RE” District to allow a setback of 42.7 feet to allow for the renovation of an existing residence located at 1810 Windham Lane. This renovation will reduce the existing encroachment into the setback and will add a second floor. In Dunraven Heights, there is no defined pattern of property lines as in a newer subdivision, the road meanders across property lines, and the neighborhood is forested. The character of the neighborhood would not be changed. Renovation of the existing structure would minimize lot disturbance, reduce existing setback encroachment, maximize tree preservation, and maintain an existing and established structure that blends with the character of the neighborhood. Steve Nichol was present representing the applicant and answered questions from the Board. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to reduce the setback to 45.7 feet with the foiiowing conditions and it passed unanimousiy. Aii variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shaii become nuii and void if a Buiiding Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within tweive (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan. 7. LOT 1. PINE VIEW SUBDIViSION. APPLICANT: DAVID & BRENDA LEMKE- VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTIONS 5.1 .Q.4.a. OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report and the background of the property. The special condition on this site is the topographic separation of the existing building from the neighboring residential use. It is not possible to locate this use on this property without a variance. This use could be located farther away from the neighboring residential use if a new building were to be constructed on the northerly portion of the site. The existing building is BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2000 Page 6 approximately 45 feet from the closest property line. The applicant owns both properties; however, the cabins located on the other property are to be sold as condominiums. Mike Lemke, the applicant, said he would prefer to use the existing building rather than excavating for a new one since the property is quite rocky and would probably require blasting. Public Comment: None. ft was moved and seconded {Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to reduce the required setback between the auto repair/service use and the neighboring residential use from 100 feet down to 45 feet and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 8. LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 9. COUNTRY CLUB MANOR. APPLICANT: LARRY PETERSEN - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Senior Planner Joseph reviewed his memo dated November29,2000, in lieu of a staff report. The property owner, Mr. Petersen, received a variance to reduce the required street setback to 10’6” from the Board of Adjustment on October 6, 1998. The construction of the carport was delayed, and the original variance has expired. The conditions pertaining to the original variance have not changed significantly since 1998. With the new code, the original required setback has been reduced from 25 to 15 feet. The approval of the variance does not preclude the Town from improving the Columbine public right-of-way. Chief Building Official Birchfield requested a setback certificate. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to reduce the required street setback to 10.5 feet with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. The granting of this variance does not preclude the Town from Improving the Columbine public right-of-way in the future. 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, the applicant shall submit a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect. 9. A PORTION OF THE KILE PROPERTY WHICH IS A PORTION OF LOT 3. SECTION 2. T4N. R73W OF THE 6th P.M.. 2090 MARY’S LAKE ROAD- APPLICANT: MARILYN PICKENS - REQUEST FOR REHEARING The Board reviewed the minutes from the October 3,2000, meeting at which time the variance request had been denied. Senior Planner Joseph commented on the request for rehearing. Legal counsel has advised It is appropriate for the Board to rehear a variance request based on new evidence and considerations that were not available to the Board at the prior hearing. Based on photos that were recently provided, the deck appears to be under construction at the same BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2000 Page? time as the sunroom, which would indicate the County’s building inspector had to be aware of the deck construction. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to reconsider this variance request and it passed unanimously. Brad March represented the applicants and distributed a packet of information which included copies of earlier received information, a copy of a Residential Property Inventory Input Card from the County Assessor’s office indicating the assessment of the enlarged deck in 1984, a copy of the Kemper’s letter dated June 3,2000, an appraisal by Robert Long of the 25 feet of the access easement in question, and a copy of the EVDC Section 6.3, Continuation of Nonconforming Uses or Structures. The concern of the Board that the 1984 construction was done without a building permit was a major factor in the denial of the October request. It is the applicant’s position that the County must have known that the deck was under construction at the time of the sunroom being built, even though the records are unclear. After the construction of the deck in 1984, the assessor came out and measured the deck which included the slanting railing. The current building code does not allow for sloping railing so the contractor increased the floor decking to reach the extent of the upper rail. The 2000 construction Is therefore a replacement of the originally approved deck. Another factor In the October decision was the offer by Mr. Kemper to sell 25 feet of his property to relieve the need for a variance. Mr. March noted that the appraiser’s conclusions were that the value of this piece of property was nominal since It was already an access easement. Mr. March provided a copy of the building permit for 1984 which reflects a setback inspection was done in December, 1984. Mr. March talked to his father who represented the original County variance request, and it is his recollection that the deck was part of the variance. Public Comment: Leon Kemper, 658 Little Prospect Road, spoke in opposition. The hot tub room is larger than the proposed drawing. He was present at the County’s Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meetings in 1984 and did not hear any mention of the deck. Mr. March responded to some of Mr. Kemper’s comments. Chief Building Official Birchfield answered questions from the Board and advised that in his experience, an inspector will inspect only that portion of the construction requested for inspection. Town Attorney White’s letter was reviewed. The Board noted there is no written evidence that a building permit for the deck was issued or a variance was ever granted for the deck. In making a decision, they must consider this a new variance request to replace an existing deck. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance for the replacement deck to the extent it does not protrude into the setback more than 9.78 feet from the property line as indicated on the RMC survey and it passed. Those voting for: Sager, Barker, Newsom, and Ball. Those against: Lamy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 5, 2000 Page 8 Board Comments: Board Member Newsom made a suggestion that height variance requests that are “boilerplate” be handled by staff review. Mr. Joseph advised that a change in the approach to measuring height was being considered. Member Sager asked for this to be expedited. Member Lamy pointed out the need for County representation. Staff will determine if a separate action to address height calculation is necessary. There being no further business. Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 11:43 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair 2^— Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Solitary