Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-09-09RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Septembers, 2003, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager, One Vacancy Chair Baker, Members Lamy, Newsom and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson One Vacancy Chair Barker 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 August 5, 2003 meeting. 2. LOT 11. PARK HILLS SUBDIVISION. 287 JOEL ESTES DRIVE. APPLICANT: STEVE MCNEILL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. This item was continued from the August 5, 2003 Board meeting. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He presented a photo simulation to show the view from the Bucher’s bay window. He stated the view lost is below the horizon. The applicant hired an architect to provide the Board with elevation and floor plan drawings. He stated the applicant has cleaned up the property as requested by the Board at the last meeting. Linda Grice, an appraiser, showed a map of the area and stated the current zoning of 2.5 acres does not fit the neighborhood, which consists of lots mostly less than 1 acre. She stated all the homes in the neighborhood are non-conforming structures in regards to the current setbacks. The neighborhood is non-homogenous and in a state of change. She stated Mr. McNeill has one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood. To illustrate the area is mixed; she showed photos of the surrounding neighborhood. She stated a triangular shaped home would be the only structure to fit inside the setbacks on Mr. McNeill’s lot. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated it is staff’s opinion the requested variance is substantial due to the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed expansion would be larger than other houses in the neighborhood, which has developed primarily as summer cabins. The current house is entirely non- conforming as to the setbacks; therefore, it is impossible to do any expansion without a variance. Based on the substantial nature of the request, it is staffs opinion this request does not represent the least deviation from the standards that would allow the applicant to expand the house and provide for a typical garage. Director Joseph stated there is clearly a hardship in this case and that a variance is required. He advised that it is not clear the requested variance is the least deviation to alleviate the hardship and protect the character of the neighborhood. He stated it is not uncommon in Estes Park for summer cabins to be replaced with year round housing. Board Member Sager feels most of the homes in the area are single level and the requested 3 story addition is out of character with the neighborhood. Public Comment: Charlie Phillips stated he provided the exterior drawings of the home. He stated the applicant is trying to limit the encroachment into the setbacks by limiting the footprint RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 September 9, 2003 of the addition to approximately 800 square feet. He feels if the addition were designed as a two story home rather than a 3 story it would encroach further into the setbacks and mature trees may need to be removed. He feels the 3 story addition would have less impact. Board Member Newsom asked for staffs opinion on a 2 story addition rather than a 3 story. Planner Shirk stated lowering the elevation of the house would help the character of the neighborhood. Spreading the addition out would probably cause the loss of a mature tree and have less impact on the view corridor. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant would consider lowering the elevation of the house by spreading out the addition into the available building triangle, which would affect more of the neighbors view. Camilla Saint, 2341 Larkspur Avenue, was present to represent the Buchers. She stated her clients are not against approval of a variance for this lot. They are against this particular variance request. She feels the request is unrealistic and does not represent the least deviation to afford relief. She stated her clients question the need for a large detached garage. She called into question the applicant’s track record regarding construction on the property. The Buchers would like some assurance that the construction will not drag on and will be completed in a timely manner. Ms. Saint stated the Spruce Knob Water Company is a small water company. If the proposed plan calls for a significant increase in the number of plumbing fixtures, they would like to have a study done to make sure the water supply is adequate, or prior to construction have the McNeill’s connect to Town water. She stated her clients are concerned that the photo simulation provided by the applicant’s engineer is not accurate. They would like the chance to obtain a private party to do a photo simulation before a variance is granted. Becky Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She stated the applicant wants to put the largest house on the smallest lot in the neighborhood. Jerry Casler, 350 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed variance request. He feels the proposed addition and the garage are too large for the size of the lot. Diana Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She stated the photo simulation provided by the applicant’s engineer is not complete. Elmer Phinney, 309 Joel Estes, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He feels the architectural drawings provided do not show a clear overall picture of the proposal. He feels the design does not fit with the neighborhood. Rick Toth, Tierra Surveys, Inc., was contacted by Duane Bucher to prepare a photo simulation to quantify the view lost from the Bucher home by the proposed addition to the McNeill home. He stated he was unable to gain access to the applicant’s property in order to produce the photo simulation. He asked the Board to table the request until the next meeting. This would allow Tierra Surveys time to obtain permission to enter the applicant’s property to conduct the photo simulation. He also suggested the potential for an informal arbitration meeting in order to come to a workable solution for all parties. Board Member Lamy stated she needs more information from the applicant in order to make a decision. Mr. Sheldon stated he would bring more information to the next meeting and perhaps show other options for the layout of the addition. He also stated if the applicant were to build toward the buildable area the view lost by the Buchers would be increased. The applicant is willing to decrease the size of the garage. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant will have to get a building permit and a construction loan at a higher interest rate, both of which are incentives to finish construction in a timely manner. The applicant has stated the water is metered and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 9, 2003 they have never exceeded the allowable usage, continuing this request to next month’s meeting. Mr. Sheldon is in favor of Chair Barker questioned if there was any proposal that would be acceptable to the Buchers. The Buchers feel that a compromise could be reached if the applicant would build a 2 story home instead of a 3 story home. Director Joseph read into record a letter in support from James and Joan Milne and a letter in opposition from Clayonna Gilliland. Board Member Newsom questioned what direction the Board is giving the applicant for the revised plan. Board Member Sager stated he has suggested they remove the 3rd story of the addition. He has not however suggested that they expand the 2nd level. Mr. Sager stated there are limitations as to what can be done on the lot. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to continue the request for the addition to the house to the October 7, 2003 meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. Board Member Newsom suggested the Board accept the reduced size of the garage at 24 feet by 36 feet, as offered by the applicant. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant would cut 6 feet off the west end of the garage. Ms. Saint would like to see the 6 feet taken off of the east end. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant would prefer to keep the garage closer to the house. Board Member Lamy stated the house and the garage are interrelated. She stated until the layout of the house is known a decision on the garage can not be made. Chair Barker and Board Member Newsom agree. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to continue the request for the garage to the October 7, 2003 meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. Chair Barker call for a recess at 9:47 a.m. 3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1. MOUNTAIN MAN SUBDIVISION. 362 EAST ELKHORN AVENUE. APPLICANT: PIKA PROPERTIES LLC - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.4.C.1 AND SECTION 4.4.D.3. TABLE 4-7 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance to allow a building to be constructed as shown on East Riverwalk Condominiums Development Plan #03-09. The setback will vary from a minimum of eighty feet to a maximum of 115 feet from the front (northern) property line. This exceeds the maximum allowable front setback of sixteen feet in the “CD” Downtown Commercial zoning district. This is also a request to allow a twenty-four space parking lot to be constructed between the front property line and proposed building. The Estes Valley Planning Commission conditionally approved Development Plan #03-09 at the August 19, 2003 meeting. The approval was conditioned on the Board of Adjustment approval of the requested variances. There are special circumstances associated with this lot that are not common to other lots in the “CD” zoning district that face an arterial or community collector street. This is the first lot on the southern side of East Elkhorn Avenue; therefore setting the proposed building back more than sixteen feet from the front property line will have less impact on the character of the zoning district than elsewhere in the district. Staff finds the requested parking lot a substantial variance because all proposed parking will be built between the lot line and the building line. The variance will not affect the delivery of public services. The applicant’s predicament could be mitigated by redesigning the plan, locating the proposed building near the front property line and placing the parking lot near the riverwalk. The variance offers the least deviation that will afford relief. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 9, 2003 Steve Lane of Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. He reviewed the project. He stated staff encouraged the location of the building along the riverwalk during the preliminary design phase. He stated the current layout allows vehicles to interface directly with the parking lot and street, whereas the placement of the building allows pedestrians to interface with the riverwalk. He advised moving the building forward would create a vehicle alley and reduce the size of the retail building. He also stated the parking lot is a current use. Public Comment: None. Board Member Sager stated the applicant has offered solid reasons for the location of the parking lot and retail building. He does question the layout of the parking lot and would like to suggest the applicant redesign the spaces to meet code. Planner Chilcott stated Planning Commission approved a variance to allow the parking spaces to be 8.5 feet wide instead of the required 9 feet. Board Member Sager stated he does not feel it is appropriate to make the parking spaces narrower in order to gain more parking spaces. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request to allow for a front property line setback greater than the maximum of sixteen feet in the “CD” Downtown Commercial zoning district to construct a building as shown on the approved Development Plan 03-09 and to approve off-street parking to be located between the lot line and the building line facing an arterial or collector street in the “CD” Downtown Commercial zoning district to allow construction of a parking lot as shown on the approved Development Plan 03-09 and the motion passed with one vacancy. 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 4. MCCREERY SUBDIVISION. 1285 CHASM DRIVE. APPLICANT: THOMAS & DIANE ENGLES - 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 a 27.5 foot variance from the fifty foot front yard setback to build a two-car garage 22.5 feet from the front (southern) property line, and a ten foot variance from the fifty foot side yard setback to build a two-car garage forty feet from the side (western) property line. The dimensions of the proposed two-car garage are twenty-four feet wide by twenty-eight feet long for a 672 square foot garage with a deck above. The existing deck which extends further into the front yard setback than the proposed garage/deck, but not as far into the side yard setback, will be removed. TW Beck Architects have stated the proposed garage/deck addition wili require removai of six trees. The addition will also be built close to a natural drainage swale. There are special circumstances associated with this lot. A majority of the lot consists of large rock formations and slabs located on steep, heavily wooded terrain. The existing house occupies the most buildable portion of the site within the setbacks. The lot is undersized for the “RE-1” zoning district; however the lot does meet the minimum lot size and the minimum width for the zoning district. It is staffs opinion that the requested variances are substantial. The proposed addition may not substantialiy alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant could not add a one or two- car garage on this lot without encroaching into the setbacks, uniess part of the existing house was converted into a garage. The proposed variances offer the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Thomas Beck of TW Beck Architects was present to represent the appiicant. He stated they do not have problems with the conditions of approval. He stated they looked at numerous alternatives for the garage and feei this proposal will have the least encroachment into the setbacks. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 September 9, 2003 Thomas Engles, applicant, stated all the surrounding cabins are summer cabins. He stated this proposal seems to be the best site with the least amount of disturbance. Public Comment: None. Because of the rock outcroppings it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve a variance request of twenty-seven feet six inches (27.5) from the front yard setback of fifty feet (50) and ten feet (10) from the side yard setback of fifty feet (50) to build a two-car garage twenty-two feet six inches (22.5) from the front property line (southern) and forty feet (40) from side property iine (western) and the motion passed with one vacancy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Buiiding Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. As recommended by Larimer County Engineering, ensure drainage is adequately addressed with a small culvert or cross-pan. 2. A detailed grading and drainage plan should be submitted with the building permit application which includes existing and proposed contours, top of foundation elevation(s), finished floor elevation(s) and finished grade at building corners, and drainage arrows. 3. As recommended by Larimer County Engineering, ensure the twenty-four inch diameter Ponderosa and its associated drip line is adequately protected from construction and future disturbances. 4. Building Permit 88-E2292 shall be renewed and a final building inspection conducted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage. 5. The applicant shall check with the Larimer County Building Department to make sure permits are not needed for any recent remodel to the cabin. If any work has been done that requires permits, permits for the cabin shall be obtained prior to issuance of a permit for the proposed garage/deck. 6. 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 setback certificate. 7. A limits of disturbance shall be established to protect the rock outcroppings from development in the future prior to issuance of a building permit for this garage/deck addition, with the location agreed to by staff and the applicant. 5. METES AND BOUNDS. SEC 35. T5N. R73W. 1213 GIANT TRACK ROAD. APPLICANT: RICHARD ORLEANS - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 5.2.D.6 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build a detached two-car garage, which would require a front yard setback and building separation variances. The required setback for all property lines in the “E-1” district is 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 15 feet. Placing the building in this location would, however, provide a 6 foot separation from the main house in lieu of the 10 feet required by the code. The applicant has chosen a location that he feels will minimize the impact on the lot. This location would have the least impact on the lot due to the following factors: slope of the lot in the area north of the house, existing water/propane lines, propane tank, water cistern, and large lilac bush. It is staffs opinion the combination of factors creates special circumstance that would result in practical difficulty in building a garage without a variance. Staff does not consider the request substantial due to site conditions. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change substantially. The applicant has submitted a petition with signatures from seven nearby neighbors, who are in support of the variance request. He stated the garage could be rotated to the northeast corner, minimizing the request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 September 9, 2003 Charlie Phillips was present to represent the applicant. He stated rotating the garage would require moving the propane line. He stated placement of the garage was influenced by grade of the lot, water drainage, and the increased cost of attaching the garage to the current home. The garage could be placed farther down the hill; however the homeowner would like to use this area to expand the house in the future. He stated moving the garage close to the house would impact the utilities and the trees on the lot. The applicant purchased the property 20 years ago when the setbacks were 15 feet. Mr. Phillips does not feel it would affect the character of the neighborhood. Richard Orleans, applicant, stated he has concerns regarding any construction near the very old cistern. He feels this location creates the least disturbance. Public Comment; Patricia Cusumano, 1190 Giant Track Road, spoke in favor of the requested variance. It was moved and seconded (Lamy/Newsom) to approve a variance request of ten feet (10) from the front yard setback of twenty-five feet (25) to build a garage fifteen feet (15) from the front property line and to allow the building separation between the house and garage to be five feet six inches (5.5) and the motion passed with one vacancy. 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. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 2. Compliance with the submitted site plan. 3. Overhead lines will need to be moved in accordance with Larimer County Uniform Building Code standards. 4. Nearby trees shall be protected with construction fencing during all construction activities. 6. LOT 6. SPANIER SUBDIVISION. 1752 HIGHWAY 66. APPLICANT: CAROLYN S. LAMB - VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-5 AND CHAPTER 6 “NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES” OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a commercial accommodations cabin at Skyline Cottages. This site was originally developed in the 1920’s, when no setback requirements were in place. The applicant proposes to build the new cabin 7 feet from the property line, which requires an 8 foot variance. This request is to build a “replacement” cabin for one that was removed earlier this year. The previous cabin was a legal non-conforming structure that had side yard setback of only a few feet; any “grandfathered” status ended when the original cabin was removed. The property is sub-sized for a typical accommodations lot; however, it is staffs opinion this does not constitute special circumstances in terms of the requested variance. The request is substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. At the time the applicant purchased the property, it was zoned “T" Tourist which had a 10 foot side yard setback. The applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Randy Williams, attorney for the applicant, stated the problems with obtaining earlier building permits were due to the contractor the applicant hired in the past. She assumed the contractor was obtaining the necessary permits. The neighbor to the east had concerns regarding the location of the new building. The neighbor dropped their objection once they found out the building would be placed 7 feet back from the property line. Mr. Williams also stated there would be a boundary line adjustment to straighten out the property lines. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 September 9, 2003 Sue Lamb, applicant, stated she has always had safety, cleanliness and beautification of the property as an utmost importance. She stated that the wooden deck on her property is about 20 feet off the ground: therefore it would not be a good location for the cabin. She presented a letter from Jessie Atkins, Estes Valley Home and Garden Center, stating her support for the requested variance. Public Comment: Sharron Bryan, 1785 Moon Trailway, spoke in favor of the requested variance. She feels if the building is pushed further into the parking lot it will make it more difficult for cars to maneuver. Joyce Bublitz, 1774 Highway 66, spoke in favor of the requested variance. She stated the applicant has made many upgrades to her property over the years. Robert Krasusuki spoke in favor of the requested variance. Board Member Sager questioned if the applicant recognized any exchange of land with the neighbor may affect her ability to meet the density calculations. Mr. Williams stated that land would be exchanged with the property owner to the east with a net exchange of approximately 150 square feet. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request of five feet (5) from the side yard setback of fifteen feet (15) to build a new cabin ten feet (10) from the side property line and the motion passed with one vacancy. 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. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record an amended plat to combine the two parcels, which the proposed building would straddle. As part of this amended plat, appropriate right-of-way dedications would need to be made. At that point, a new density calculation would be required to determine if the applicant has adequate land area to build the proposed unit. If adequate land area to support the requested density is not available. Board approval would automatically become null and void. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Larimer County Building Department. 3. Compliance with the submitted site and building plan. 4. The applicant shall submit a certificate, from a registered land surveyor, which states compliance with the site plan. This certificate shall be submitted to the building official at his convenience, during normal office hours. 7. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated the changes the Board suggested last time have been addressed and reviewed by the County and Town Attorneys. The by-laws are ready to be reviewed by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. Board Member Sager stated he would like the following added to item I.C.3., “if and when personal communication has taken place it shall be declared at the meeting.” There being no further business. Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 11:46 a.m. Jeff'Bark'er, CRair lyn WilllanJdpqu^lyn Williamson, Recording Secretary