Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2002-10-01BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1, 2002, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board;Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Ball, Members Sager, Barker and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:Board Member Lamy Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:00 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 September 10, 2002 meeting were accepted as presented. b. PORTION OF LOT 7, SUMMERVILLA SUBDIVISION, 775 RIVERSIDE DRIVE - continued to the November 5, 2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. LOT 3, BLOCK 10, PILTZ SUBDIVISION. 170 LAWN LANE. APPLICANT LINDSAY LAMSON - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4- 2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for an eight foot four inch (8’ 4”) variance to build a deck one foot eight inches (1 ’ 8”) from the southern side lot line. The applicant has also requested a 5.71 foot variance to build a second deck 4.29 feet from the northern side lot line. The property is zoned “RM” Multi-Family Residential. The existing duplex had two entrances via decks that have been recently removed. The purpose of this variance request is to replace arid expand these decks. The lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum lot size for the “RM” Multi-Family Residential zoning district is 40,000 square feet. The size of this lot is 0.08 acres (3,556 square feet). This lot would also be undersized for the highest density single-family residential zoning district, the “R-1” zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, which also has a side yard setback of ten (10) feet. The existing two-story duplex was built in 1909 and is nonconforming as to the ten (10) foot southern side yard setback. This southern side of the house is 2.26 feet from the property line. A nineteen (19) foot wide deck could be built conforming to the ten (10) foot southern side yard setback. This would provide access to the doors installed on the front of the house and a three (3) foot wide deck could be built on the northern side of the house, which would conform to the setbacks and is wide enough to serve as the principle entrance to the house. Agnes Rau, owner of 160 Lawn Lane, wrote a letter in support of the variance. Board Member Sager stated that the most compelling issue is the comments made by Chief Building Official Wil Birchfield. Mr. Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott stated that structures less than 3 feet to a property line must have 1-hour fire rated wall assemblies. Bryon Horgen, Building Official, restated Mr. Birchfield’s comments. He also stated that the new roof on the deck would have to be protected and meet the current code standards. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to approve the variance request due to the narrowness of the lot and the fact the house is already BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1,2002 Page 2 nonconforming to allow for an eight foot four inch (8’ 4”) variance to build a deck one foot eight inches (1’ 8”) from the southern side lot line and a 5.71 foot variance to build a second deck 4.29 feet from the northern side lot line and the motion passed unanimously, one absent, with the following conditions. 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. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a stamped and signed setback certificate. 2. The applicant shall comply with the comments in Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 24, 2002. 3. Per Greg White’s September 25, 2002 memo, the granting of this variance does not change the non-conforming status of the existing structure as to the east side yard setback. 3. LOT 5. BLOCK 3. AMENDED PLAT OF WINDCLIFF ESTATES. 5th FILING. 3175 EIGER TRAIL. APPLICANT JOSEPH AND PATRICIA MIRANDA- VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests an eleven foot nine inch (11 ’ 9”) variance from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback required in the “E-1” Estate zoning district, to build a house thirteen feet three inches (13’ 3”) from the Eiger Trail front lot line, a ten foot four inch (10’ 4”) variance from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback to build a deck fourteen feet nine inches (14’ 9”) from the Eaglecliff Drive lot line, and a ten foot nine inch (10’ 9”) variance from the twenty-five (25) foot setback to build a deck fourteen feet three inches (14’ 3”) from the southern side lot line. The lot is currently undeveloped and the proposed 4,603 square foot house has a footprint of 2,431 square feet. The lot is undersized for the zoning district and falls between the “R” Residential zoning district and the “E" Estate zoning district. The setbacks requested by the applicant more closely match the setbacks required in the “R” and “E” zoning districts. The lot is very steeply sloped making the driveway design difficult. Building closer to the front lot line assists with driveway design. The proposed house may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Homeowners Association submitted comments approving the east and west setback variance requests; however they objected to the south lot line encroachment. Board Member Sager suggested that perhaps there should be a formulation of a general regulation that would alleviate the need for recurring setback variance requests in the Windcliff area. Director Joseph advised that the Windcliff Subdivision was developed through the County PUD process and developed in the County “E” Estate zoning district. Through the PUD process they dedicated large open areas and clustered the lots around the roads. He suggested the only way to avoid the recurring setback requests would be to rezone to a category that fits the actual size of the lots in the Windcliff Subdivision. Director Joseph suggested that staff could make some contacts with the Homeowners Associations to see if they woul^l be willing to consider rezoning. Rpger Thorp, 131 Stanley Avenue, of Thorp Associates was present to represent the applicants. He stated the subject home is not designed as an oversized home. Mr. Thorp advised that the Miranda’s came to them in 1996 and since that time Thorp Associates have designed many footprints trying to take into account that the lot is fronted by roads on 2 sides, the narrowness of the lot, importance in BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1,2002 Page 3 having safe access and the steepness of the lot. He stated that there is only a very small corner of the garage and portions of 2 decks that will be within the setbacks. They are not asking for anything different then other homes in the area. He discussed some examples of other variances in the area. Mr. Thorp stated that the decks are an important architectural design. They have kept the mass of the building within the setbacks and the only reason the garage is in the setback is to make safe entry into the garage. Board Member Sager stated that the other drawings (floor plan, roof plan, elevations) would have helped the Board in their review of the variance request and that the perspective drawing of the building was confusing. He suggested that those kinds of drawings should be presented to the Board when they are available. Mr. Thorp advised that level of detail is not always available at this stage of the design; however they were available in this case and could have been provided. Mr. Thorp went over the homes floor plan and elevations. He stated that the maximum building height of 39.6 feet on the plat was incorrect and that the actual maximum building height will be 38 feet. He stated that there are a number of trees on the lot and they are trying to save as many as possible. They feel the trees help buffer the home from the side yards. Board Member Newsom stated that Thorp Associates have done an exceptional Job with the design. He asked Mr. Thorp to comment on the Homeowners Associations comments. Mr. Thorp stated that he feels that the deck Is a minor encroachment, that it is setback farther then the “R” zoning would require, there are a number of trees to buffer the deck from the neighboring property, and that the home itself is 33 feet 4 inches away from the lot line which far exceeds the setback requirements. William Sharp, Architectural Control Committee Chairman for the Windcliff 5th Filing, stated the committee does not have a problem with the potential for the home to be 39.6 feet high. Board Member Sager questioned whether the committee was aware that the encroachment on the south side was only the deck and not the house itself. Mr. Sharp advised they were aware that only the deck would encroach into the setback. He stated that the committee recognizes the difficulties of the lot and they do not have any problem with the garage encroachment which is the dead side of the house. The committee is trying to protect the space between the lots and preserve the rights of the future homeowners. Director Joseph asked Mr. Sharp if the community In Windcliff would be open to the idea of rezoning their lots to the “R” Residential zoning district. Mr. Sharp stated that people bought these lots with the “E-1” Estate zoning with 25 foot setbacks. He feels that even with an “R” zoning you will still have people coming In for variance to the 10 foot setbacks. He thinks the people In this subdivision would resist a change to the “R” Residential zoning district. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Sager) to approve the variance request due to the lot size to allow for an eleven foot nine inch (11’ 9”) variance from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback to build a house thirteen feet three inches (13’ 3”) from the Eiger Trail front lot line, a ten foot four inch (10’ 4”) variance from the twenty-five (25) foot setback to build a deck fourteen feet nine inches (14’ 9”) from the Eaglecliff Drive lot line, and a ten foot nine inch (10’ 9”) variance from the twenty-five (25) foot side yard setback to build a deck fourteen feet three inches (14’ 3”) from the southern side lot line and the motion passed unanimously, one absent, with the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 1,2002 Page 4 following conditions. 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. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a stamped and signed setback certificate. 2. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval with the building permit application. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate that the slope’s ground surface and subsurface are not unstable, that the proposed development will not cause instability or Increase the potential for slope failure, and that the development of the slope will not increase the degree of hazard both on-site and on adjacent properties (Development Restrictions on Steep Slopes - EVDC §7.1.B.2.b.(4). Mr. Sharp stated this approval will probably set precedence for the area and feels the Board is negating the “E-1” zoning of the area. He believes you will see more Windcliff homes being built up to the lot lines. He feels the Board is doing a great injustice by approving this request. 4. REPORTS There being no further business. Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 9:23 a.m. Joe Bal1,^hair J^cqu'feKcquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary