The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2004-04-06RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 6, 2004, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Bill Horton, Members Jeff Barker, Wayne Newsom, Al Sager, and Cliff Dill Chair Horton, Members Barker, Newsom, Sager and Dill Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:None Chair Horton called the meeting to order at 8:02 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 2, 2004 meeting. b. Portion of SE V*. of the SE Va of Section 27, T5N, R73W - Applicant request to continue item to the May 4, 2004 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously. MORAINE jr l^¥¥ l/H- AVENUE.APPLICANT: DALLMAN CONSTRUCTION - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 7.5.F.2.B.(6)OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow a driveway to be located within the mandated arterial street frontage buffer landscape area. The driveway is proposed to run parallel to the right-of-way for approximately 200 feet. A development plan is currently under review in the Community Development office, which proposes eleven accommodation condominiums. The narrow shape of the lot, the river setback requirement, and the 25 foot highway buffer combine to create special circumstances associated with the lot. The variance request would allow development in an area that is normally reserved for landscaping. The proposed development is a significant change from the existing single-family dwelling: and therefore, would be an impact on the neighborhood. Staff recommends additional screening is included to balance the variance relative to the standard. This request does not represent the least deviation that would afford relief. Units 7 through 10 could be redesigned to eliminate the garages and allow a driveway that meets the code. Board Member Sager questioned the 30 foot river setback for this project instead of the code requirement for a 50 foot river setback. Planner Shirk stated that the river setback for developed lots in 30 feet in lieu of the 50 foot setback. Board Member Sager stated the existence of a single-family home on the lot does not in his mind make the lot developed. Director Joseph advised that the code does not make a distinction between developments. Lloyd Morris of Cornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated that all existing structures on the lot will be eliminated. He advised there is a 7 foot drop off from the road to the property. This drop off will minimize the visual impact of the project from the roadside. The applicant is going to place additional trees between the highway and the proposed driveway. Board Member Sager asked what the grade of the driveway will be due to the 7 foot drop off. Mr. Morris stated fill will be brought in with a maximum grade of 12 percent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 April 6,2004 Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Dill/Newsom) to approve a variance from Section 7.5.F.2.b.(6) “No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area” to allow a driveway within the landscape buffer area and the motion passed unanimously. 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. Approval of a development plan for the property. 2. A minimum of two (2) 8-foot tall evergreen trees shall be planted between units 6 and 7 and, a minimum of two (2) 8-foot tall evergreen trees shall be planted between units 8 and 9. These shall be delineated on the landscaping plan for the development plan. 3. A minimum of two (2) 8-foot tall evergreen trees shall be placed between the proposed driveway and the north property line. These shall be delineated on the landscaping plan for the development plan. 3. LOT 13. LITTLE VALLEY 2ND. TBD STAR WAY. APPLICANT: PONDEROSA CONSULTING - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Applicant requests a variance to allow a north side yard setback of 28 feet in lieu of the 50 foot setback required by the code to build a single-family dwelling. The lot is sub-sized for the “RE" zone district, is narrow, has rock outcroppings, and has a slope of approximately 35-40%, steeper towards the western portion of the lot. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The house is similar in size and lot orientation to others in the Little Valley area. The applicant has recently purchased the lot. The property has had 50 foot setbacks since at least 1993. A conforming house could be designed to fit the lot. The applicant’s predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. The Little Valley Homeowners Association has written a letter of support. Board Member Newsom questioned why the applicant is not requesting a height variance when it is clear they already exceed the limit. Planner Shirk advised that the height limit was not recognized until later when the applicant was already out of the country. He stated compliance could be achieved at the building permit process. The applicant can lower the pitch of the roof to meet the requirements. Jason Hilton, employee of applicant, was present to represent the applicant. He stated it would be possible to move the house down to the steeper portion of the lot; however the leach field would then have to be placed higher which would be in conflict with the wells in the area. He advised they have been working closely with the Little Valley Homeowners Association and the property owner to the north. It would be aesthetically pleasing to place the house higher on the lot. This in turn would allow for access off of Star Way and allow for a south facing driveway. Public Comment: None. Based on the narrowness, steepness and the approval from both the Little Valley Homeowners Association and the neighbor to the north, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to approve a twenty-two foot (22) variance from the fifty foot (50) side yard setback to build a single-family dwelling twenty-eight feet (28) from the northern side yard setback arid the motion passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shaii 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. Compliance with the approved site plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 April 6, 2004 2. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be presented to the building official. A copy shall be submitted to Community Development. 3. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 4. An engineered foundation will be required. 5. A building permit is required prior to any construction work on this project (including excavating). 6. The applicant shall contact the Wildfire Safety Coordinator (Tony Simons) at 970-498-7718. Board Member Sager would like staff to provide the members with a realtor map of the Little Valley area. Board Member Newsom will provide staff with realtor maps of the Little Valley and Windcliff areas. 4. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSMENT BYLAWS Director Joseph stated the County has made some rninor housekeeping changes to the bylaws. If the Board approves the bylaws they will move forward for final adoption by the Town Board. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Barker) to approve the Supplemental Rules and Procedures (Bylaws) with the capitalization of the words Chair and Vice- Chair and it passed unanimously. 5 REPORTSDirector Joseph reported that the processing schedules have been updated for the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission. Board Member Barker feels the increase in review time is irresponsible to the needs of the citizens. He feels we are increasing the burden on the citizens and it needs to be recognized. Director Joseph stated these changes were prompted by a lawyer who stated we are not following the timelines as they are presented in the code. Theses changes to the processing schedule were made to meet the current language in the code. Board Member Newsom would like staff to contact the contractors to inform them of the processing time change. Director Joseph stated staff would inform the contractors of the change. Board Member Sager asked what the timeline is for getting the aiternate position filled Director Joseph stated the County is currently accepting applications tofil the alternate position. Board Member Newsom would like the Town to have input on who the County selects. Board Member Barker stated he intends to resign from the Board once the Mayor has chosen a replacement. There being no further business, Chair Horton adjlsiume^he meeting at 9;00 a.m. lair • 0 icqiflelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary