Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-03-06BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6,2001,8:00 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: Acting Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the February 6,2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. 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 This item had been continued from the February 6, 2001 meeting to allow the applicant to make his comments. Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff recommendation of allowing 35 feet rather than the requested 39 feet. Jack Ott expressed his concern that there was a great amount of rock to be blasted in order to lower the building elevation. He requested an allowance of 37 feet; however, he would attempt to meet the 35 feet if possible. Director Joseph advised staff would be able to monitor the excavation. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings and the applicant’s offer of compromise, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow a 35 foot height limitation, with 37 feet allowed if needed due to bedrock, in lieu of the 30 foot height limitation as required in the “RE” Rural 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. 2. 3. 5. Submittal of a site plan that provides a building pad at 8017 feet or lower. Full compliance with the revised grading plan. Submittal of a surveyor’s certificate verifying the elevation of the building pad prior to pouring of the foundation. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. 3. 1631 HIGH DRIVE. APPLICANT: ALICE SCHWARTZ - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6,2001 Page 2 Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 25-foot rear and side yard setbacks to allow a rear yard setback of 1.6 feet and a west side yard setback of 23 feet and east side yard setback of 12 feet to allow for the expansion of her home. The proposed addition is for bedrooms and dining room expansion. The property is zoned E-1 Estate. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services, though the Larimer County Building Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District had comments related to fire wall rating and easements, respectively. All walls less than three feet to the property line are required to be 1-hour fire rated assemblies, with no openings such as doors and windows. The utility easement on the east side of this property is 15 feet wide so the existing structure is already encroaching by approximately 3 feet. Upper Thompson Sanitation District will allow the room addition as long as the encroachment including the roof overhang does not exceed 3 feet 6 inches. There were no building setbacks in place at the time of construction. Now that setbacks are in place, the structure is in non-conformance regarding the rear and side yard setbacks. It would be impossible for the applicant to expand the cabin on either side or the rear without a variance. The requested variance is substantial and in conflict with the UBC, which would require one-hour construction and no openings for any wall within 3 feet of the property line. Staff recommends maintaining three feet of separation from the building foundation and any protrusions other than building overhangs. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. Community Development has received verbal support from the northern neighbors. The applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Planner Shirk read the staff findings into the record. Gail Campbell was present representing the applicant. There is an existing lean- to construction that would be removed on the north side. There is a 20-foot easement on the adjoining property to the north which would provide a buffer. The applicant agrees to the revised 3-foot rear setback. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a 3-foot rear setback, a 23-foot setback on the west side and a 12-foot on the east side, instead of the 25 foot setbacks as required in the E-1 zoning district with the following conditions and it passed. Those voting yes: Lamy, Barker, Newsom, Bail. Those voting no: Sager. 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. Submittal of a revised site plan delineating three feet of building separation from the rear lot line and maintenance of no more than 3’6” encroachment into the utility easement along the east property line. This second measurement includes any overhang. 2. Full compliance with the revised site plan. 3. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 4. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate indicating compliance with the site plan in regards to the north and east property lines. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6,2001 Pages 5. 6. New construction shall be consistent in style, materials, and color of existing cabin. This should be addressed with the building permit submittal. Submittal of a letter from Upper Thompson Sanitation District agreeing to the construction over their easement and a letter from the property owner stating the Town or County is not liable for any expenses related to the Upper Thompson easement. These documents shall be recorded with the register of deeds prior to submittal to the Community Development Department. 4. LOT 22. LITTLE VALLEY. 2NP FILING. APPLICANT: CAROLYN CODY & CAROLYN DENNEHY - HEIGHT VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE 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 mandated 30-foot height requirement to allow a maximum height of 32 feet from existing grade, and to deviate from the 50-foot setback requirement to allow a rear yard setback of 35 feet for the construction of a single family dwelling. A previous owner did excavation work in 1982. This excavation provides a level area on which to build. However, the applicant and applicant’s designer feel this “building pad” is insufficient for their needs. The applicants propose a structure that would have been able to comply with the 30-foot height limit if the original grade were in place. The Board determined that it was not necessary to review the height variance request since the height calculation is based on original natural grade. The lot is zoned “RE” Rural Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and 50-foot setbacks. The applicants’ lot is only approximately 1.5 acres, which would fall under the “E-1” Estate zoning district in terms of use and size. The “E-1” district has setbacks of 25 feet. A conforming structure could be built on the excavated portion of the lot. Due to the slope and forested nature of the lot, it is Staff’s opinion the requested variances are not substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The applicants purchased the property in 1997, prior to the adoption of the EVDC. At the time the property was purchased, the maximum building height was 40 feet, though the setback requirement was still 50 feet. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Planner Shirk read the Staff findings into the record. Carolyn Cody presented their request and delivered a letter from the Little Valley Homeowners Association, which supported their request. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings which inciuded the facts of the iot size, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request to aiiow for a 35-foot rear yard setback instead of the 50-foot setback as required in the “RE” zoning district 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 a foundation, verification by a registered land surveyor of setbacks of building pad. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6,2001 Page 4 5. LOT 7, BLOCK 2, FALL RIVER ESTATES, APPLICANT: RANDY COLLINS, HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present on behalf of the applicant to withdraw this variance request. 6. LOT 2. BLOCK 7. WINDCLIFF ESTATES. 5th FILING. 3464 EAGLECLIFF DRIVE. APPLICANT: TAD PIENKOSZ - HEIGHT VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FROM SECTION DEVELOPMENT CODE 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY Planner Shirk reviewed the Staff Report. A variance allowing a 35-foot height was granted for this property in January, 2001. The applicant wishes to increase the maximum height from the 35 feet previously granted to allow a height of 39 feet. The Board determined that the height limitation had already been decided and would not be reviewed again. The applicant also requests rear and side yard setbacks of 15 feet in lieu of the required 25 feet in the “E-1” Estate zoning district. The applicant has submitted photo evidence regarding the proposed location of the Pienkosz residence in relation to the view corridor of the neighbor to the south. Approval of the side yard setback variance would move the proposed structure closer to the existing neighbor, thus reducing the spatial buffer between the homes. Approval of the rear yard setback variance would push the proposed structure further out of the neighbor’s view corridor. The applicant purchased the property in November of 2000, after the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Copies of a letter from the Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association’s architectural committee dated March 5,2001, were distributed to the Board. The architectural committee approved the 35 foot height limitation and agreed to the setback variances. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Paul Kochevar represented the applicant and reviewed the proposal. The problem of the driveway grade and rock outcroppings was discussed in regard to moving the house to the north. Shortening the driveway would make it steeper. Tad Pienkosz spoke that it was not his intent to block his neighbor’s view, only to get the most use from his own property. Public Comment: Bill Sharp, chairman of the architectural committee of the homeowners’ association, stated they did not to take exception to the setback requests. The letter from the neighbor to the north, Mr. Johnson, expressed he did not have any issue with the setbacks either. Mr. Johnson’s letter was reviewed. Board member Sager, having reviewed the view corridor on-site, felt the neighbor’s issue was unfounded. Based on staff findings, the driveway grade, and the review of the site corridor, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request to allow a side yard setback of 15 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet In lieu of 25 feet as required In the “E-1” Estate zoning district and it BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 6,2001 Pages 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. 7. REPORTS The Board discussed the condition of submittals. Plans submitted to the BOA should be complete with site staking in the field so that an informed decision can be made. Applicant should be required to supply all the necessary information. The staff may use its discretion in providing what is necessary for the Board’s decision. There is not a list of submittal requirements as there is for Development Plans for Planning Commission. Requiring additional and unnecessary cost to the applicant is a concern. Property corners should be staked at the very least. The Board has the option to postpone a decision and require the applicant to provide the additional information. Paul Kochevar commented that a short list of requirements for the site drawing would be helpful. Property lines and building corners should always be marked for setback variances. Staff appreciated the Board’s feedback and will continue to work on improving the regulations. The Board requested that staff prepare minimal standards for applications. Member Ball left the meeting at 9:35 a.m. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m. Je^Barker, Chair Kiy)0M(uhL ?Meribeth Wheatley, Record^Secretary