HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-02-06BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 6,2001,8:00 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 and Sager
Also Attending: Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Wheatley
Absent: Member Newsom
Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
The minutes of the January 9,2001, meeting were accepted as presented.
2. REPORTS
Chair Barker requested Staff to give any reports to allow more time for applicants
to arrive. Planner Shirk reviewed the formula to calculate the maximum height
that is being considered as an amendment to the Estes Valley Development
Code. On slopes that are greater than 15% the maximum height may be
adjusted up to 40 feet using the formula Mb= 30 + [.50(a+b)j where Mb is the
maximum height allowed at any given point, a is the elevation at highest point of
natural grade of proposed building footprint and b, the elevation at any other
given point within the building footprint. This item will be considered by the Estes
Valley Planning Commission this Spring along with other Code revisions. Review
of the variance requests began at 8:11 a.m.
3 1224 CHASM LANE. APPLICANT: GEORGE YOUNG - SETBACK VARIANCE
REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant requests a variance to
allow a side yard setback of 39 feet in lieu of the 50 feet required in the
zoning district. The existing cabin was built in the mid-1940’s before building
setback requirements were in place. Special circumstances also exist in that the
property is located in a 10-acre zoning district that requires 50-foot setbacks, and
the lot is only 0.974 acre. Approval would not change the status as a legal-non
conforming structure. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public service,
although the Larimer County Building Department had comments related to
wildfire hazard and foundation construction. The essential character of the
neighborhood would remain the same. If the applicarit were to raze the cabin
and rebuild completely within the building setback lines, the additional site
disturbance and removal of trees might have a greater change in the visual
character of the neighborhood compared to the proposed addition. The variance
would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. The requested
variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
The findings of the Staff report were read into the record.
Public Comment:
None.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 6,2001 Page 2
Based on staff findings which inciuded the facts that removai of the
existing house wouid create a greater disturbance and the proposed
addition better maintains the character of the neighborhood, it was moved
and seconded (Lamy/Sager) to approve the variance request to aiiow a
setback of 39 feet in iieu of the 50 foot setback as required in the RE-1
Estate zoning district and it passed unanimously with one absent. 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.
4. LOT 16. GREY FOX ESTATES. 2645 GREY FOX DRIVE. APPLICANT: JOHN
OTT - 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 30-foot maximum height to allow a height of 39 feet. The lot has a
southern exposure, is moderately wooded, and has a slope ranging from 17% to
30%. The submitted site plan does not indicate any cut to lower the natural
grade, only fill to raise the grade to create a level building pad. The applicant
proposes to build the house on the shallowest portion of the lot, which h^ a
slope of 17-18%. Conforming homes have been built on similar slopes. The
burden of demonstrating practical difficulty falls on the applicant. No significant
issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance
or the provision of public services. A conforming structure could be built on the
site. Due to the undeveloped nature of the immediate neighborhood, an
“essential character” has yet to emerge; however, this house design is
comparable to the other existing houses in this subdivision. The applicant
purchased Lot 8 In Grey Fox Estates in December of 2000 when the current
regulations were in place. The applicant has since acquired Lot 16 in a and
exchange with Dick Barlow, developer of Grey Fox Estates. It may be possible to
mitigate the applicant’s predicament through some method other than a variance.
The requested variance does not represent the least deviation from e
regulations that will afford relief. The submitted proposal includes a grading plan
that raises the lower part of the lot by approximately 10 feet, vjjiich in turn
requires a 10-foot variance. An alternative would be to raise that portion of the lot
5 feet and lower part of the lot five feet. This would balance the cut and fill,
provide the fill from on-site, decrease driveway slope, and reduce the variance to
35 feet. The findings of the staff report were read into the record.
Public Comment:
None.
Based on the fact there was no one to represent the appiicant, it was
moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to continue this request to the March 6
2001 meeting with recognition that the compromise wouid be a reasonable
solution for the applicant’s consideration, and it passed unanimously with
one absent.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 6,2001 Page 3
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant proposes to build twelve
2,091 square foot condominium units on Lot 16 which increases the Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) from .30 to .37. FAR was impiemented in the Estes Valiey to reduce
the overall bulk and massing of multi-family developments, and works to fulfill
several scenic and environmental quality policies set forth in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Chapter 6, Section 6.0. There does not
appear to be any special circumstances of practicai difficulty associated with this
lot. Therefore, the requested variance wouid nullify the intent and purpose of the
FAR requirement. This requirement was implemented after the applicant
purchased the property and the applicant has developed several other lots within
the subdivision individually. This proposal would be consistent with the
development of the rest of Ranch Meadow Subdivision. The developer does not
have a statutory vested right to develop this lot under the old regulations. There
may be beneficial use of the property without the variance and the applicant s
predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. It is
the opinion of Staff the requested variance is substantial. Mr. Kevin Doiron,
neighbor on Lot 4, Block 4, of Lone Pine Acres, spoke to staff in opposition due to
the potential disruption of views, which would have a negative effect on the resale
value of his house. It is Staff’s opinion granting this variance would violate
Section 3.6.C.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code which states: “No
variance shail be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the Applicant’s property are of so generai or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations." If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deyiatiori from
the regulations that wiil afford relief. The Board should use their discretion to
determine if the requested variance fulfills this standard. No significant issues or
concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the
provision of public services, though Town Attorney White had comrrients
regarding a lack of special circumstances associated with this property and the
fact the applicant does not have a statutory vested right to develop this propei^
under the old regulations. The findings of the Staff report were read into the
record.
Bill Van Horn was present to represent the applicant. Applicant agrees there is
no vested right; however, the Board of Adjustment has the discretion to allow
variances based on speciai circumstances. The special circumstance is that 29
other lots have been developed in this subdivision without this requirement. The
applicant chose not to go through Special Review but rather each lot has been
reviewed as a development plan. The density is the same under the new Code
The neighborhood would not be adversely affected. The development to the east
has a higher FAR. Regarding the neighbor’s comment, the deYe,°P"l®"tiiP^.^"
was in place at the time the neighbor’s property value was determined. Reducing
the number or size of the individual units would be significant and have a financial
impact on the owner. The Estes Valley is in need of accessible housing.
Commissioner Sager commented that at the time the original development plan
was discussed the developer promised that a view corridor would be left on the
north part of Lot 16. Mr. Van Horn advised that this was an offer made to satisfy
the neighbors to the east but it was turned down. That offer was w'thdrawnand
instead Mr. Wille changed the use of the iot from commercial to residential. Chair
Barker noted that the special circumstance was that the neighborhood has been
developed under the old regulation.
Based on Staff findings that there appears to be no speciai circumstances
and granting this variance wouid negate the intent of the FAR, and th
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 6,2001 Page 4
neighbor to the east would be affected by the loss of a view corridor, it was
moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to deny the variance request for 1630
Raven Circie and it passed. Those voting yes: Lamy, Sager, and Baii.
Those voting no: Barker.
There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
Jeff"fe^l^er, Chair
Meribeth Wheatley, Recordin^ecretary