Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 2021-03-02Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 2, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually in said Town of Estes Park on this 2 day of March 2021. Committee: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair, Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice-Chair Newsom, Board Member Holtzman, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Planning Technician Charlie Rugaber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Board Liasion Barbara MacAlpine Absent: none Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holzman) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holtzman) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 3-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Vice-Chair Newsom recommended Member Holtzman be Chair. Member Holtman declined. Vice-Chair Newsom agreed to be Chair, and Chair Moreau agreed to be Vice- Chair. These changes will take place at the next scheduled meeting. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the change of officers. The motion passed 3-0. VARIANCE REQUEST, Fall River Estates Lot 2, Block 2 Planner II Alex Bergeron Planner Bergeron reviewed the staff report. He explained that to mitigate perceived development challenges related to slope, the applicant proposes to build their home at the upper portion of the lot, partially within the codified minimum setbacks. To achieve their vision for development, the applicant seeks a variance to reduce the front setback to 15 feet from the required 25 feet and reduce the side setback to 10 feet from the required 25 feet. Staff recommended denial of the lot's variance request, which is out of character with general development trends in this area where hardship was not evidenced given that the home of a size similar to those in the area could fit on the lot within the setbacks (and no alternative design was considered), for which no public support was found, and in consideration of comments provided by staff in other departments. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Board of Adjustment, March 2 , 2021 – Page 2 Todd Wilderman, Project Designer, explained the slope of the building site and why they chose the location and design. His opinion was that the upper half of the lot is the most appropriate place for building the house. The steepness of the driveway was a significant factor and the main reason for the variance request. The 17-foot front setback variance allows for a reduction of approximately a four-foot vertical drop to the garage. David Bangs, Project Engineer, emphasized that safety was taken into account for the homeowners. Driveway access on nine properties in this subdivision have similar access where this condition occurs. In designing this, the plan is to mitigate the driveway turn slope, keeping the straight parts of the driveway steeper. Jennifer Waters, Public Works Engineer, expressed concerns about the driveway being in the right-of-way and in front of the neighboring property. A Revocable Encroachment Permit for a retaining wall and a waiver for driveway slope will be required to build a driveway in the right-of-way. Her opinion was that this design does not honor the spirit of the Code as it relates to steep slopes, and perhaps a differently designed home would be appropriate for this site. PUBLIC COMMENT: none BOARD DISCUSSION: A question was raised about the setbacks when the subdivision was platted in 1972. This could answer why there are so many nonconforming homes in this subdivision. The neighboring house, at 150 feet away, allows for three times the required separation. Chair Moreau stated that he thought the design was acceptable for the lot, and a smaller home running down the slope could create further hardship and difficulties. Having built multiple houses in this subdivision, on steep slopes, he feels that good knowledge of building practices was used in this design process, and this house plan was the best alternative to build on this lot. The neighboring lot is 100+ feet away, and the west side is a vacant lot. He recommended approval of the variance. For the sake of clarity, he noted that the owners are required to have a setback certificate from a registered land surveyor verifying that the location is no greater than the variance being approved. Vice-Chair Newsom stated that he initially thought that the house should be redesigned to fit the lot. After hearing the applicant's presentation, he now understands the challenges that had to be overcome. He also noted that there was no detriment to the neighbors. Member Holtzman agreed with Moreau and Newsom. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request as written with the requirement of a setback certificate from a registered land surveyor. Director Hunt asked for findings to be stated as part of the motion to approve, suggesting the wording used in the Board's discussion. Chair Moreau agreed with the suggestion; however, specific language intended to accompany the motion was unclear. He recommended approval of the request submitted by David Bangs, and Holtzman again seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. Board of Adjustment, March 2 , 2021 – Page 3 REPORTS Director Hunt discussed the Comprehensive Plan rewrite process. Eight proposals were received from Consulting firms seeking to assist with this. The Selection Committee will decide on the Consultant, and the Town Board will review and hopefully approve a contract in April. The Board of Adjustment will be kept informed, and input and comments will be welcome. Vice-Chair Newsom expressed opposition to increasing density in residential areas and increasing building height. Jeff Moreau, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary