HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-05-06RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
May 6, 2003, 8:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Board:
Attending:
Aiso Attending:
Absent:
Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al
Sager
Chair Barker, Members Newsom and Sager
Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording
Secretary Williamson
Member Lamy
Chair Barker 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
а. The minutes of the April 1, 2003 meeting.
2. LOT 15 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 10 -17 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 1.
б, 8 & 9, ELKHORN ESTATES. 415 FALL RIVER LANE. APPLICANT: MARK
THEISS - 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 seven foot variance
from the fifty foot northern side yard setback and a twenty-three foot six inch
variance from the fifty foot southern side yard setback to build a single-family home
in the RE zoning district. The area in which the applicant proposes building will have
the least impact on the land as far as driveway cuts and cutting into bedrock and
rock outcroppings. Building higher on the lot would require more extensive removal
of bedrock and rock outcroppings. A longer driveway with additional switchbacks
would also be required. There are special circumstances associated with this lot.
The lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum required lot size for new
lots in the “RE” Rural Estate zoning district is ten acres. The size of this lot is 1.39
acres. This variance request is needed in part because of these special
circumstances and in part because of the footprint size for the proposed house. The
variance request could be further minimized or eliminated if the proposed house had
a smaller footprint. The proposed variances are substantial: however they may not
substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Since a house will be
built that extends across more of the lot than would otherwise be allowed on a very
steeply sloped site, staff recommends that a detailed grading and drainage plan be
submitted with the building permit application.
Board Member Sager asked what the options would be for rezoning. Planner
Chilcott stated that if the 3 lots were combined and rezoned to one acre lots there
would be the potential of subdividing the land into 4 lots. The current “RE" zoning
lirriits the site to 3 lots that can not be further subdivided. Director Joseph concurred
with Planner Chilcott’s statements. He advised the lots in question were zoned “E”
prior to the rezoning in 2000. During the rezoning of the valley, the property was
zoned RE to limit the site from being further subdivided due to its unsuitability.
Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant.
He stated it would be easier to site the house on the property if the variance could
be increased a couple of feet on both the north and south property lines.
Mark Theiss, 1460 Prospect Mountain Drive, stated the building sites for Lot 13 and
17 will be determined by the placement of the road. Board Member Sager stated Lot
17 has more potential for a building site that would not require a variance.
Public Comment:
None.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
May 6, 2003
Based on the narrowness, steepness and smallness of the lot It was moved
and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve a variance request of nine feet (9)
from the northern fifty foot (50) side yard setback and twenty-five feet (25)
from the southern fifty foot (50) side yard setback to build the single-family
house forty-one feet (41) from the northern property line and twenty-five feet
(25) from the southern property line and the motion passed unanimously with
one absent and 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 form
the date the variance is granted.
1. Compliance with the submitted site plan.
2. 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.
3. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall 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.
4. 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)).
5. Rear setback line is shown as 100 feet rather than 50 feet. This should be
corrected with building permit submittal.
6. Submittal of a signed and recorded driveway access and maintenance
agreement approved by staff prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
3- g PORTION OF LOT 11, BLOCK 10. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 251 BIGHORN
D0LPH & CHERYL SWIFT - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
ggCTION 4, TABLE4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CQDF
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance from the
front and side yard setbacks in the “RM" zoning district to remodel a portion of an
existing single-faniily residence. The footprint of the house would not change-
therefore the existing setbacks will not be further reduced or increased There are
!f/cCIK •ffirCUTnia.nCe!1aSSOciated with this lot- The existin9 single-family residence
was built in 1924 and is nonconforming as to the fifteen foot minimum front yard
setback requirement and ten foot minimum side yard setback. The northeast corner
from lhfPTX|,ni1?ely 2,8 feJet from the front property line and approximately
Vpn Htom^/th ude c iae accord,n9 to the Improvement Survey prepared by Bill
Van Horn, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying. Also a portion of the oaraoe
areCar0kCnnt °'8 feetBi9 Horn Drive right-of-way; however, remodel9of this
area is not proposed. There can be a beneficial use of the property without the
rpmodp?’ Thhe eXIStin5 li?.use can coritinue to be used without the proposed
of thedneighborhood°Sed addltl°n may not substantially alter the essential character
HPQtItoHi'lh 251 B!9 HoT1 Drive’ was present to answer questions from the Board.
He stated they are trying to improve the foundation and the property.
Board Meniber Sager questioned the small portion of the garage that encroaches
into the right of way. Greg Sievers, Construction/Public Facilities Manager, stated
these encroachments of older homes into older right of ways are not uncommon. At
th's t'me't IS a not an issue for Public Works Department, When this property is sold
m the future It may become an issue for the Title Company. The owner would have
Title0Coemtpatny T°Wn t0 haV6 that P0rti0n °f the ri9ht of way vacated to sat'sfy the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
May 6, 2003
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request
of approximately 12.2 feet from the fifteen foot (15) front yard setback and
approximately four feet (4) from the ten foot (10) side yard setback to remodel
a portion of the single-family house 2.8 feet from the front yard and six feet (6)
from the side yard and the motion passed unanimously, one absent and one
vacancy, 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. Compliance with the submitted plans.
2. The proposed remodel shall not extend further into the setbacks than the
existing structure. The footprint size and shape shall remain as is.
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.
Compliance with the Estes Park Sanitation District’s April 24, 2003 letter to
Alison Chilcott.
3.
^Pii^LL,?C^r.^>^.l!:lgg!:'^FJ£T^TFS\5LH.FAL|N^ ST MORTIZ TRAIL,
dTiu? uN.T,‘ f.? GETCHELL - variance REQUEST FROM SECTION
± TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMFNT nnnp
o:i I. • I Ic?nZrfl™dh'fS th!. applicant's engineer requesting a---------- * ^ V4 I I W| I I UlC ClU
continuance to the June Board of Adjustment meeting.
JtunrBoa<iHeofTHC! S®con^ed (Sager/Newsom) to continue the request to the
absem an?ot vScy6 mee,m9 a"d ,he m0,i°n paSSed una'>i"’0“cly, one
5‘ ^7ol6, SP/^NIER subdivision. 1752 highway fiR, APPI irANT. CAROLYN 9
aUWs^imeleirbvf e?srngdev!S^ ‘ TheVacrifhnCe reqUe? Sh0U'd n0'be heard
•iQon’o I " violations. The cabins were developed in the eariu
As'^resuiUhe a^pSTsVIquSg" a° sidtya^f^b*5" ^^ding OffiS
work was compietedwKhout^a buifino Vaf6y B,2ard of Adiac‘ment, and
LWe!oprnT deten™iSnearnX(Sta^ser/NeWST) ‘0 accept the Community
violations ^Lf beTn coTOcled flr rm!91165' n°‘ be heard untl1 al1 P“>
unanimously, one absent and one vacancy.PrOPerty a"d ‘he m0t'°n Passed
Public Comment:
S0SMineKcragkesb HehereadlUt^l?hamb' 9aa6 b,ack8round °f Lamb's ownership
be prS il9ste%d thaTbme k nnhrf0,d 3 lefrfrom Ms' Lamb who "O*
the cabin is aiready booked for the sfummereHraI0keCd C°n.stmction because
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
May 6, 2003
Board Member Sager stated he feels the Board could schedule a meeting prior to
the next Board of Adjustment meeting in June to hear this item.
Planner Shirk handed out a staff report from the Larimer County Building
Department Code Enforcement. He stated there are several violations on this
property and Chuck Harris, Larimer County Building Official, stated this is the 5th
stop work order on this property.
Director Joseph advised the best course of action would be for the property owner to
contact the Larimer County Building Department to resolve any life safety issues and
then come back to the Board. Board Member Newsom concurred with Director
Joseph’s statement.
Chair Barker stated it is the responsibility of the property owner not the general
contractors to make sure they have the appropriate building permits and are in
compliance with the Code. He advised that issues of economics are not a reason to
hear this item. He stated that Ms. Lamb needs to work with the Larimer County
Building Officials to resolve the violations.
Board Members are willing to have a special meeting in order to move this issue
forward.
6. REPORTS
Chair Barker stated the Board still has a County vacancy. He hopes the vacancv
can be filled in soon.
There being no further business. Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m.
Jeff'Barker, Chair
Jaofluelj^ Williamson, Recording Secretary