Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-10-02BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2001, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board:Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the September 11,2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 72. BLOCK 1. LITTLE VALLEY 2nd FILING: TBD HUMMINGBIRD DRIVE, APPLICANT: MICHAEL & PHYLLIS COURTNEY -• SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUESTS 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 50-foot rear yard setback to allow a property line setback of 20 feet, and a variance to deviate from the 30-foot maximum height to allow a maximum height of 40 feet from original grade to allow for the construction of a detached single family dwelling. It is Staff’s opinion the slope and ridgeline protection area create special circumstances that are not common to most areas and may result in practical difficulty. Based on the slope of the land (35-40%) and the presence of the ridgeline, it is Staff’s opinion the variance is not substantial and this request is the least deviation that would afford relief. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. Alternative locations would require extensive cut-and-fill, which would be more visible from surrounding properties and have a greater detriment to the neighborhood. Without the variance, the structure would have to be located in an area that would have a greater visual impact on the neighborhood. The site is within an identified Wildfire Hazard Area. Mitigation will be coordinated through the Larimer County Building Department. The property owner to the south had called for clarification but did not have any complaints. There were no other contacts from the neighbors. Frank Whyte, the general contractor, was present representing the applicant. Public Comment: None. Based on the configuration and steepness of the lot with the rocks, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve a rear yard property line setback of 20 feet as opposed to a 50 foot setback as required in the RE zoning district with the following conditions. Motion passed. Those voting yes: Sager, Barker, Newsom, Ball. Those voting no: 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 October 2,2001 Page 2 1. A setback certificate prepared by a registered iand surveyor verifying compiiance with the site pian shaii be submitted at the foundation inspection. 2. An eievation certificate verifying compiiance with the site pian shaii be submitted at the foundation inspection. Eievation shaii be in relation to project benchmark established on the submitted site plan. 3. Non-reflective building material shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). 4. Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend In with the surrounding hillside. 5. Wildfire mitigation in accordance with Section 7.7.E.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Wildfire mitigation shall be coordinated with the Larimer county Wildfire Safety Coordinator. 6. Erosion control shall be implemented during construction. 7. Site shall be revegetated with native grass seed mixture prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 3. 1236 GLACIERVIEW LANE: PORTION OF SECTION 35, T5N, R73W, APPLICANT: PHIL & CHRIS SWITZER - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 6.3.C OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance to allow for the replacement of four (4) small barns with a 2,560 square foot barn. The applicant proposes to store animals and hay in the structure. The EVDC prohibits barns in the “E” district. The property has been used for an alpaca farm operation since 1980. In 1997, the applicant was cited for a zoning violation. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners heard the zoning violation in January 1997. At that time, the Board found that a violation did not exist with certain conditions. It is Staffs opinion that the Board of County Cornmissioners decision provides for a special circumstance that applies to this particular property, and restricting the development of the barn may create a practical difficulty. The same use of the property may continue without a variance.^ A barn could have been built on the property prior to the implementation of the EVDC. It is staff’s opinion that the requested variance would be the least deviation that would afford relief. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Phil Switzer, applicant, reviewed his request and the difficulty to adding on to the existing barns. Predators (such as coyotes, bears, mountain lions) have been sighted nearby and their alpaca stock need the protection of a barn at night. Board Member Sager expressed his earlier concern that it was not within the powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment to approve an extension of non- conforming use. In this case, however, it is an extension of a non-conforming use that was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners and would fall within the Board’s responsibilities. Mr. Switzer advised that the new barn would be dark green and light tan. There has been no response from the neighbors other than Alan Joseph who commented that he was not opposed. Public Comment: None. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2,2001 Pages Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Ball/Newsom) to approve the requested variance to Section 6.3.C.1 of the Estes Vaiiey Deveiopment Code to aiiow for the expansion of the non-conforming use; specificaiiy to buiid a 2,600 square foot barn with the foiiowing conditions. Motion 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. The extent of the “use expansion” shall be limited to the proposed barn. 2. The applicant shall maintain compliance with the 1997 Board of County Commission ruling. 4. REPORTS Planner Shirk advised that the height modification formula has been recommended by the Planning Commission to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. The Boards will have their hearings in October after which new height variance requests will be reviewed using the revised calculation method. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:35 a.m. Meribeth Wheatley, Recording^ecretary