Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-04-01RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 1, 2003, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board:Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Vice Chair Lamy, Members Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Chair Barker, Director Joseph and Planner Chilcott ^J^lSlarirJ,lmy Ca"^d th®meelin9t0 0[tier 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 March 4,2003 meeting with the addition of Member Lamy’s MO OMnRaCngneCreRoad Safetyre9ardS t0 'tem 3' L0‘1’ E'kh0rn Club Estates’ b' by the ap0pf|icant7’ Sumn1ervllla Subdivlsion, 775 Riverside Drive - Withdrawn accentoH^nrf ®.n<l sec°nded (Sager/Newsom) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent. .... c"ranarLSeh™ a an attaohed two-carnaranc^ nn o i., ai c A, ......... lo duiio an attached t\garage on a lot in Al Fresco Place, an unrecorded plat There is an pvktinn sinqie-car oaraae .su____^ H f1- 1 rier®.13 an ex|stmg an'attache'd SS '™9 ^ ^ build lino Tha r.«..r _____ ,..--------------- w/Mvdimy oiiuoiuic diiQ me soumem oroD would violate the reauired fnnf cotKor.1^ “Tu« A ^_ . ^ 6©t, whichwould violate the required 25 foot setback ThpTn7 4? Y ] teet’ Whlch “E-1" district, which acres-13 undersized for the other area.\ocatAtlwMt,!rIfthot,?:oc^l?u!!!>.lf.aroa!° tbe P^pAed location and*one ^omalure^0^^consbdeem1h!in9h0Uf BheCaUSB°f'he would allow*fnremmntLn?.7..^!fh^i^^-a?a.^fJ.suf)s^apbal. Alternatives exist that than a hnif9 °f thMPrDPtrty Was inaPProPriate for the oddly shaped lot that is less zoned Ta thTLnSrrtv0be?.T S,ated that 'fthe Pr°Perty had been approp tetel Snid -E.r P P y W0Uld haVe r0U9hly ,he same use,ul land area as a 1 acre lot nrawd tm®mber Sa9er 3tated the removal of 2 mature spruce trees concerns him and tho6t s 0 be 9|Vfa careful consideration. Mr. Robertson stated he could have taken the trees down initially before requesting a setback variance He does not fee th^^ u,?irStriiCtl?n garage Wl11 imPact the root zone by more than 30 percent He is Th l-n9 i°b0nd ‘ithe 2 trees die due t0 the construction he will replace the trees HeMrVRnhrrte W0U^ th6 9arage in °rder to Pr°tect the ro^e Sth^trees Mr. Robertson stated that he has a legal right to remove the trees. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 April 1,2003 Public Comment: Harriet Burgess, 441 MacGregor Avenue, stated that her husband is caretaker for the Robertson house. She stated that her husband has mentioned several times to the Robertsons that their lot has 25 foot setbacks. Mrs. Burgess advised the lot is nonconforming to size but not to use (single family residential). She feels the zoning for the lot is appropriate. She is concerned about the size of the garage and the effect construction will have on the 2 trees. She is also concerned that the driveway for the new garage would require an extension, pushing it farther south and coming within less than 3 feet of their property line. She would like to see the garage reduced in size and brought even with the current garage, which would still require a setback variance. Mr. Robertson stated the garage is not wide when you look at other 2-car garages. He restated that construction of the garage will not impact the trees and the garage IS longer than normal in order to house the new furnace and laundry room. He stated he is trying to work within the code. Planner Shirk stated the entire neighborhood has had the same zoning and setbacks since at least 1974. Board member Newsom stated that as a realtor in the area, he has found that the ypical 2-car prage is 575 square feet. He questioned whether reducing the garage size would allow the addition to fall within the setbacks. Planner Shirk stated a reduction in the length of the garage would give the trees a greater chance of surviving the construction. Mr. Robertson stated adding on to the existing garage might work; however the niH altelrnat'Ye Yould be t0 shrink the proposed garage length and make the old garage a laundry / recreation room. fa9er U C0nvil?ced ,he proposed 26 foot wide garage would destroy the l^oth frl o« rf ?■ He wol,ld su99est shrinking the garage to 24 feet and shorte^Ji posstbly'sa've^th^^trees.^ W° 'he encroaohment in,°,he setbaPK and S0Da'Jld Ne'son. architect for the project, stated he would favor cutting the length of e propopd garage over the width. He stated the garage was designed 26 feetouL lUnf MthecS'0P! 0f ,he lot- The oPP'ioant wants to preser^e SaTural grade foouong gaMrageterrn Sta,ed h6 feelS h6 C°U,d make a 30 foot and Board member Newsom stated that it is his understanding that the aoron of the er„Hay,C0.Kld be..Within ,he setback- Planner Shirk advisedIhS driveways ran extend into the setback up to 3 feet from the property line. onvewaya oan It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to deny the variance reoueet fo build a garage fifteen feet (15) from the south property Hne and tL r?o«?n passed unanimously with one absent. L1.°:'^l:0-CK3i !:ARlMER tfrminals, 46o elm road, applicanti 7'^[G'2, AND SECTI0N 7.11.N.2.A OF THE ESTF.9VALLEY development nnnt=' VanlmEnSnntefnl6 .Bi" Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to repi-eserittheappkcanb9He stSedtoe Kt toeVcatos9 Th din9ihowever,he site is in a a'a'aoftarmoil wL the the scales. The current Qnnu/ctnrm U .|A A- - I .....................the scales ^ ^ w lUMinjii will I lilt; removal orThe current snowstorm also made it difficult to stake. He stated that this nncitinn thcs .......^ uuiiuiiiy iiseii; tnereiore staking theposition of the building would not be necessary. He apologized for not placino the required s on on tho nrnnor+w ua r:__x xr y .? .no.1 P|acm9tnerequired sign on the property. He stated this is the firtimTthroug^ h s atoployee and the applicant. He advised that the road does not get a W oHraffic RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 April 1,2003 and all the neighbors are aware of the project. Member Sager stated that it is important for the property to be signed for those who might drive by and be interested. Planner Shirk stated that it was an oversight by staff. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant proposes to build a 12,900 square foot metal building. The building is intended to serve as storage for the rock quarry operation to the north, and to allow space for the applicant’s historic fire engine restoration business. These requests are in conjunction with an amended plat and development plan proposal to be heard at the April Planning Commission meeting. Due to the minimal anticipated truck traffic, staff does not consider the loading area variance substantial. Staff also does not consider the request to reduce the required landscaping substantial. This is due to the existing character of the neighborhood and proposed rock features, which may be considered to serve the same function as shrubs, and will fit with the character of the neighborhood and nearby rock quarry. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. Mr. Van Horn stated the applicant does not have a problem with the staff conditions. The purpose of landscaping on this site was not for the adjacent neighbors but for those properties that will view the site from across the valley. Therefore, the decision was made to place additional trees on the south side of the building. He stated they are aware this will set a precedent for the area. He advised the shape and size of the lot makes it difficult to have the loading area outside of the building. He feels that any activity that can take place inside of the building will create less impact on the neighborhood. Public Comment: Ed Kitchen, 1901 Fish Creek Road, stated he likes the applicant’s plan. He feels it is important that the landscaping requirements be flexible. He questioned the parking and need for so many parking spaces. Joyce Kitchen, 1901 Fish Creek Road, stated Planning Commission has been looking at the requirements for landscaping in areas were trees and shrubs have not grown in the past. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve the variance request from Section 7.5.E.1 Landscaping Requirements for Nonresidentiai Uses, Section 7.5.F.2.b.(5).(b) Planting Requirements for Nonarteriai Street Frontage, Section 7.5.G.2 Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping and Section 7.11.N.2.a Off- Street Loading Requirements to plant 15 trees instead of the 22 trees required, 7 rock features instead of 71 shrubs, and to allow for the off street loading to be built within the building and the motion passed unanimousiy, one absent, with the foiiowing conditions. Aii variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shail become nuii and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within tweive (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. The applicant shall at no time utilize public right-of-way for use as loading/ unloading zone. All trucks shall be parked on the applicant’s property. 2. The landscaping plan shall be modified to relocate one of the trees from the east property line to the west side of the parking lot. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Vice Chair Lamy adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. Judy Lamy, Vice Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary