Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-06-03RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 3, 2003, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Barker, Members Newsom, Sager and Lamy Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:One Vacancy 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 a. The minutes of the May 6,2003 meeting. 2. LOT 6. BLOCK 4. WINDCLIFF ESTATES. 5TH FILING. 1531 ST MORTIZ TRAIL. APPLICANT: ED & MARGE GETCHELL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 1.9.E OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build a single family home within 15 feet of the front yard and 21 feet of the side yard setbacks. The applicants are also requesting a variance to build the house 43 feet high in lieu of the maximum building height of 40 feet due to the slope of the lot. The site, located at 1531 St. Moritz Trail, within unincorporated Estes Park, does not have special circumstances that are not common to similar areas (e.g. St. Moritz Trail) that will result in practical difficulty in meeting the property setback requirements. Staff does not consider the individual variances substantial: however the cumulative requests are substantial. The proposed house is larger than the existing homes located on St. Moritz Trail, and may have an impact on surrounding properties. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. The applicant’s requested variances could be mitigated by building a smaller home on the lot thereby alleviating the need for a variance. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Board Member Sager stated the height variance could be eliminated by changing the gable ends to hips. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He stated that would be a major structural change that would affect the look and feel of the house. John Thiessen, architect, stated that the house is all timber framed with trusses, and changing the gables would drastically change the overall design of the house. He stated that the gable ends could be changed, however the applicants would like to leave the house as designed. Lonnie Sheldon stated that last month’s concerns were in regards to the driveway, location of the house, the projection of the garage and the size of the house. There were no concerns raised last month regarding height. He reviewed the zoning and setback requirements for the property. He stated that this property is more in line with the “E” zoning district than the “E-1” in which it is currently zoned. He stated this is a hardship for the applicants. He reviewed the changes that were made to the site plan in an effort to decrease the variance requests and to decrease the driveway grade. He stated the height variance request is an 8% variance, the front yard variance request is a 40% variance, and the side yard variance request is a 20% variance. He stated the house is larger than the other homes on St. Mortiz. Mr. Sheldon advised that Van Horn Engineering has been involved with 13 variance requests in the Windcliff Subdivision, and of those variance requests the average RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 3,2003 side yard setback approved is greater than the Getchell request. He also stated the average first floor square footage for these same homes is greater. They have addressed the neighborhood and staff concerns and have modified the plan to minimize impact while providing a compatible design on a sub sized lot. The variance requests are not substantial when compared to other requests in the surrounding neighborhood. Board Member Sager questioned the driveway entrance and the possible deterioration of the roadway. Mr. Sheldon advised they have reduced the cut of the driveway, reduced the grade, shifted the driveway to the north, and minimized tree removal by moving the driveway. They will extend the culvert under St. Mortiz Trail to address the drainage. Chair Barker stated he has not heard a reason to grant the variances based on the Board’s ability to grant variances. Mr. Sheldon stated the variances are rieeded due to the steepness of the lot, size of the lot, the shape and location of the driveway and the character of the neighborhood. He feels the applicants should be given the same latitude as other homes in the area. Board Member Newsom questioned why the home was not designed to fit the 25 foot setbacks. Mr. Thiessen stated the applicants were under the impression that the variance acquired by the previous owners was still valid. He designed the house with those setbacks. Public Comment: John Hiatt, 3452 Eagle Cliff Drive, a member of the Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association Architectural Control Committee, stated the committee has concerns regarding the encroachment to the south and the design of the driveway. He stated the engineer and architect have done a good job of redesigning the driveway to decrease the slope; however the committee would like to see the driveway moved farther south in order to save some trees. The committee would like to see the requested south side yard variance denied. Mr. Sheldon offered a compromise to eliminate the south side yard setback and increase the north side yard setback to 20 feet instead of the current 22.8 feet. Board Member Newsom is concerned that the neighborhood to the north might not be happy with increasing the variance to the north. Mr. Sheldon stated that the property owner to the north was approached with a 20 foot setback, to which he had no complaints. John Hiatt is concerned about increasing the variance to the north more than a couple of feet without giving the property owner to the north a chance to review the request first. Board Member Lamy questioned the culvert location if you move the building father north. Mr. Sheldon stated the culvert will also have to be moved 2 feet north, but the drainage would still be on the Getchell property. Based on the north neighbor’s consent to the proposal and the fact the house should have been designed to meet the setback requirements it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve a variance request of ten feet (10) from the twenty-five foot (25) front (east) yard setback, ^o feet four inches (2’4”) from the twenty-five foot (25) north side yard setback, disapproval of the five foot (5) request on the south side yard setback, and approval of the maximum height of forty-three feet (43) in iieu of the forty foot (40) maximum and the motion faiied. Those voting “yes” Newsom and Sager. Those voting “no” Barker and Lamy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 June 3, 2003 3. 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. Director Joseph stated staff has determined this variance request should not be heard at this time due to the continued violations. The applicant has contacted Chuck Harris, Larimer County Building Official, to begin correcting the violations that exist. He stated that once all violations have been investigated by Chuck Harris, the applicant may reapply for a variance. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) that this request be denied and the motion passed unanimously, one vacancy. 4 REPORTS Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed bylaws for the Board of Adjustment. These bylaws are to clarify the way the Board has been doing business. The Board Members are concerned with the statement that “All motions shall be to approve the application.” They would like the attorneys to discuss the wording further. B°ard Members also questioned the term limits and are concerned they might have trouble filling vacancies in the future. There being no further business. Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m. Chair Jac ;^ef^ WiliianiTon^R^ordin^ecretary