Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2002-09-10BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10, 2002, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Ball, Members Lamy, Barker and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:Board Member Sager and Planner Shirk Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the August 6, 2002 meeting were accepted as presented. b. LOT 3, BLOCK 10, PILTZ SUBDIVISION, 170 LAWN LANE - continued to the October 1,2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. I OT Q CMMORRAH SUBDIVISION. 550 OURAY DRIVE, APPLICANJ BARABARA JAMPOLIS - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.^ TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for an eight foot six inch (8’ 6”) variance from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback required in the “E-1” Estate zoning district, to build an addition to the existing house sixteen feet six inches (16’ 6”) from the front lot line. The existing house is 1,843 square feet. The 3,515 square foot proposed addition will more than double the size of the house for a total square footage of 5,358. There are special circumstarices associated with this lot. The area the applicant proposes bulldin9 °"'s t^.ehbeS‘ area for an expansion. This area is the least steep area and does not have significant trees that would be removed by the addition. The applicant proposes removing some of the smaller rock outcroppings, but leaving the more sign ficant rock outcroppings untouched. The variance request is needed in part because of these special circumstances and in part because of the large footprint of the proposed expansion. This request equates to a ‘h'W ,43r4t|^] variance which is substantial. The proposed house may sub^antially alter the essential' character of the neighborhood. All other houses on °g^ayv5^^'i|^ some setbacks of at least twenty-five (25) feet and are screened by trees. While some trees will screen the house, this proposed 5,358 square f°°‘b°u|a the the neighborhood. The applicant purchased the property in 1981 prior to t Febmary 1 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code^ The rMuiredfront setback from 1990 until the 2000 rezoning was greater ttentwenty- flve (25) feet The 1999 Larimer County Land Use Code required a forty-five ( ) foot front yard setback in this district. The 1990 and 1993 Larimer County Land Use Codes required a front yard setback of 75 feet from r°® offer the least from orooertv line whichever is greater. The variance does not off ,H deviationPfr^ the regulations that will afford relief. The vanance request cou beml^izedormaybe unnecessary if a smaller addition was constructed. rharip<! PhilllDS P.O. Box 1106, Estes Park, was present to represent the aoDlicant MrPphillips passed out letters from the neighbors that would be mos aS by me addUion. These neighbors’ letters stated that they would be in support of the Jampolis addition. He discussed the steepness of the lot, rock BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10,2002 Page 2 outcroppings and the vegetation on the lot. He stated that the addition will be placed 4 feet into the side of the hill. In order to push the addition back another 3 feet into the hill would require an 8 foot retaining wall in the back of the house. Based on initial conversation with the staff it was thought that the staff could support anywhere frorn a 5 to 10 foot encroachment into the setback due to the conditions of the lot. He discussed the layout of the addition. He stated that the objective of the design was to maintain the integrity of the site without disrupting the character of the neighborhood. He also stated that you will see the structure as you drive up the road but that with the staggered design it will not appear as a massive structure. In addition, there will be trees in the front to help screen the house. He advised that there are no homes in the area that will be able to see the new addition due to the buffer of the trees and therefore the new addition will not affect the character of the neighborhood. Board Member Barker questioned whether an 8 foot retaining wal' could^® placed in the back of the house that would put the house within the setback. Mr. Phillios stated that they could set the house back into the hillside farther, however This would be dangerous and difficult because it would disturb the hillside and cause slope instability. Public Comment neighbors. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Board Member Newsom stated the ®PPl'?®n‘ ® gf^porhood aHes°ated that with approved. avar?arJc^l3He?eelseth^^oardsthoutdaaketntoMtnskterationah1edeSres^f*the neighbors who are in favor of the addition. „ „ ^ ..d « request to allow for al^ „♦ ward setback to build an addition to the mandated twenty-five (25) foot fro y lot Une and the existing house sixteen feet s.x inches (16 ^ )fJ°^follow.mg conditions. Ali motion passed unanirnous y, on .. t,ment sha|| become null and void if variances granted by the Board J d id for anci the work•J,S5.PS;.L d» « » granted. 1. A registered land surveyorsha" se‘the.|Xepourinr»^^^^ r:yorfhra"trrnSpIenSce With £0 variance and provide a stamped and signed setback certificate. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10,2002 Page 3 2. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval with the building permit appiication. 3. LOT 24. THE RESERVE. 2ND FILING. 1401 DEER PATH COURT^ APPLICANT DOUG & MARY JANE RAMPY - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 5.2.B.2.d.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build an 800 square foot garage and a 966 square foot garage, for a cumulative total of 1,766 square feet. There are no special circumstances. This equates to a seventy- seven percent (77%) variance, which is substantial. The proposed garage may substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. AI1 l(jJs immediately adjacent to this lot are undeveloped; however, garages are not the dominant feature of the existing single-family homes in the Reserve Subdivision. Staff has drafted a code revision proposing increases in the maximum allowable square footage for garages and all other accessory structures The elevations show windows in the garage and a covered patio on the north side of the garage^ Also, the petitioner does not propose paving a driveway to the RV 9ara9® the RV will only be removed from the garage a few times a yfar- T.^eset^fhs'3^ elements help mitigate the visual impact of the large 9ar®ge’1 g^^een desiqn elements, staff recommends that trees and shrubs are planted to screen the garage. The driveway should be redesigned to comply with the code, which requires that driveway width shali not exceed thirty (30) feet at the street line. The current plan shows a forty-five foot wide driveway at the property line. Other Board of Adjustment decisions incorporated in the staff report were included in error. Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the They are in agreement with the staff findings. He stated that the lo is outin the open and everything is visible on the site. They have no problem with planting requirement. The driveway will be brought into compliance. Mr. Van Horn stated that the 2 garages are attached and the architecture design fi the rest of the house. Board Member Lamy welcomes a change in the code as doesBalloe f°ae|s Member Barker thanked staff for recognizing a need for a code change. He fee s that we have gone overboard on the landscaping requiremenfiHe stated there s a reason there are no trees growing out there and every house built out there is going to be seen. He would move to approve with the removal of the landscaping requirement. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Lamy) to aPP"?'?f *h®6fiXrer feefof to allow for the construction of a cumulative total ofl.Tefisquareteeiot garage space on the lot and the motion passed unan mousiy one absent with the following conditions. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall Lcome null and void if a Building Permit has notbeen issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) month from the date the variance is granted. 1 Comoliance with the submitted plans with the exception that the driveway ■ beTedesigned to comply with EVDC Appendix D.1I1.B.5 a which requires that driveway width shall not exceed thirty (30) feet at the street line. Director Joseph advised there are times when a,df9° BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 10,2002 Page 4 does not disagree. Director Joseph stated that when the Board sees fit it may impose special conditions. 4. REPORTS There being no further business, Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. c'^elvH Willi Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary