Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2006-07-11RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 11, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Cliff Dill; Members Chuck Levine, John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Chair Dill, Members Levine, Lynch, Newsom, and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer None Chair Dill called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the June 6, 2006 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as submitted. • jrOT 68, CARRIAGE HILLS 7th FILING. 2031 Monida Court. Applicant: David Habecker, Agent for Harlalee and Sandra Wilson — Variance request from Estes yalley Development ^e Section 4.3, Table 4-2. to allow an addition to be located 5.4 feet from the front lot line in lieu of the 15-foot setbacks rpfi..irpri in the R-fles/denf/a/zoning district ----------- Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to allow a sunroom addition to an existing single-family residence to be located 5.4 feet from the front property line. A deck, which was smaller than the proposed 10-foot-by-16.4-foot addition, was removed and the addition will be built in its place. There are special circumstances associated with the lot, in that the existing house and deck encroach into the setbacks. The residence was purchased prior to adoption of the Estes Valiev Development Code (EVDC), when the setback was five feet from the front property line- the required setbacks were increased at the time the EVDC was adopted The ,r«?ii|lieSted V.ar,a.nCiiS no!_substantial Qiven that only approximately ninety square feet will encroach into the setback. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered and the adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment as the result of approval of the variance. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owriem for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town °/hE.stes Public Works Department, Fire Chief Scott Dorman, Town Attorney Greg White, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Public Works requested that utilities in the right-of-way be shown on the submitted plan. Staff will review the resubmitted plan to ensure the delivery of public services is not affected. Eaves must be shown and may not encroach into the utility easement; some redesign may be required. No comments from neighbors have been received, either in support or opposition to the variance Planning staff recommends approval of the variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 11,2006 Public Comment: David Habecker of Habecker Designs, representing the property owners, addressed the Board. He requested that any member of the Board who objected to his religious convictions recuse themselves. None did. He stated the applicant’s plans had been submitted to the Town building department, the location of the foundation forms had been verified by Van Horn Engineering, and the footings had been poured before any concerns were expressed about the placement of the sunroom addition in the setback. He objected to having to pay an additional $350—the additional amount due for post­ construction variance applications—stating that it was punitive in nature and that an honest mistake had been made. When questioned by Director Joseph, he agreed that the original plans submitted to the building department were inaccurate and had shown an incorrect setback. He contended the original setback distance of five feet should not have been changed with the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. He stated the applicant’s willingness to comply with the suggested conditions of approval but requested that condition #3—which states in part, “A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the building 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.”—only require submittal of the setback certificate because one had already been prepared. Planner Chilcott agreed that the applicant should submit the existing setback certificate for the foundation rather than having it resurveyed. Because the residence is aiready encroaching into the setback, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 68, Carriage Hiiis 7th Fiiing, to allow an addition to be located 5.4 feet from the front lot line in lieu of the 15-foot setbacks required in the R-Residential zoning district, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and condition #3 amended as noted above, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1, 2. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan, with the exception that eaves shall be shown on the site plan to verify that eaves do not encroach into the five-foot utility easement. Compliance with the comments in the Public Works’ memo dated July 11,2006. A setback certificate shall be submitted. 3. METES and BOUNDS. 2220 Windcliff Drive. Applicant: Windcliff Village, Inc. — Variances from Section 4.3, Table 4-2. requiring a minimum 50-foot setback in the RE-Rura! Estate zoning district. Section 6.3.C.1 & 2. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Prohibited & Limited, and Section 7.13.B.2. Areas for Outdoor Trash Collection and Compaction, to allow the expansion of an existing trash-compaction building Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to allow the expansion of an existing building that serves as the trash collection point for all of Windcliff Estates; the expansion would provide room for a trash compactor. The applicant received approval for variances from the Board of Adjustment on June 1,2005 to enlarge the building, but the approval has lapsed. The current application proposes a larger addition than formerly approved, and expansion to the west and south, rather than to the north, moving the addition farther from the front property line. Because the trash building serves the entire subdivision, and expansion of the existing building will have the least amount of impact on the neighborhood, planning staff recommends approval of the variance. Public Comment: Don Darling, Windcliff property owner and general contractor for the proposed expansion, stated the applicant had not proceeded with plans submitted for last year’s approved variance because of their desire to add a trash compaction unit, which requires more space than was approved. He reiterated that the trash compaction RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 11, 2006 building will serve all of Windcliff subdivision and will be less obtrusive than the formerly approved addition. Member Levine noted that part of the building addition will allow Windcliff subdivision to do more recycling and commended them for their efforts. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the variance requests for Metes and Bounds, 2220 Windcliff Drive, to allow the expansion of an existing trash-compaction building, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor verifying compliance with the approved site plan. 4- metes and BOUNDS fPID: 2519100016). 1098 Havbarn Hill Road. Applicant: Arthur and Carol Goodall — Variances from Section 4.3. Table 4-2. and Section 5.2.d.7, to allow a 50-foot-tall ham radio tower to be installed in lieu of the 30-foot height limit for accessory structures Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to allow the relocation an existing fifty-foot-tall ham radio antenna tower from its current location on Beach Lane to 1098 Haybarn Hill Road. The applicant proposes to locate the tower behind the cover of trees, which will help screen the structure from surrounding properties. The subject property is ten acres in size, and the proposed location for the tower IS in the middle of the lot, approximately 680 feet from the south property line. Special circumstances or conditions exist, in that the radio tower must be tall enough to extend beyond the tops of the trees, which are forty to forty-five feet tall. In considering whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjacent properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Planner Shirk noted the nearest house will be at least 700 eet away; the tower will not be lit and will be painted a neutral gray tone. Lumpy Ridge will provide a backdrop for the structure, and the tower will not be silhouetted against the sl^r. Trees w|ll conceal the majority of the structure. A shorter structure could be built that would meet the thirty-foot height limit, but it would need to be placed in a c earing to the south of the house, making it much closer and more visible to adjacent property owners. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance request. nrnLrrtqLieSt WaSf submit!®d to 311 applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were reVie,Win9 Sta,, rela,ive t0 code “"’Pliance or the provision of public ervices. Letters of support were received from the nearest property owner Scott Joens, and from Milton Sebelik, President of the Estes Valley Amateur Radio Club Letters of opposition were received from the North End Property Owners’ Association fn? ifSmiflVe oe?,y °^Pers in The Reserve Subdivision, including Sheldon Johnson, Lot 18, Jim and Sally Kile, 1025 Elk Trail Court; Barrie Lea Alioth, Lot 17; Rod and Sherry Unruh, Lot 20; and Juliann F. Smith, Lot 16. After phone conversations with Planner Shirk on July 10. 2006, Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson withdrew their opposition Mr Johnson further stated that Ms. Alioth and Mr and Mrs. Kile had asked that he convey their desire to withdraw their opposition to the request. Planner Shirk stated the property owners who had withdrawn their opposition had done so after he explained that the tower would be placed behind the cover of trees and that the applicant could erect a thirty-foot-tall radio tower in full view without need for a variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 July 11, 2006 Public Comment: Art Goodall, the applicant, stated his willingness to comply with all the recommended conditions of approval. Member Newsom suggested that painting the tower green would make it even less noticeable: Mr. Goodall agreed to paint the tower whatever color the Board recommended. Discussion among the Board and planning staff followed regarding the color of the proposed radio tower. Member Lynch questioned whether Mr. Goodall would erect a smaller tower if the variance was denied. Mr. Goodall agreed that was a possibility but did not commit to do so. In response to questions from Member Newsom, he stated he chose the proposed location for the radio tower in order to provide the least impact to neighboring property owners while getting good reception and keeping the costs of transmission cable down. The land farther to the north on his property has dense trees and difficult terrain. Tom Pickering, 1504 Deer Path Court, stated his objection to the variance request and that homeowners who withdrew their opposition to the request were choosing the lesser of two evils. He noted there is only a single tree blocking the view of the tower from The Reserve Subdivision and requested the tower be placed as far away and at the lowest level possible. Lynn Weissenrieder, President of The Reserve homeowners’ association, expressed his personal objections to the variance request, as well as those of the association, stating they did not want to the radio tower to be instalied at all. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance requests for Metes and Bounds, 1098 Haybarn Hill Road, to allow the installation of a 50-foot- tail ham radio tower, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the specification that the tower be painted green, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. Full compliance with applicable building codes. Evidence of federal license shall be presented with the building permit application. No lighting shall be allowed on the tower. The tower shall be painted with a flat, matte-finish, green paint to match the color of the surrounding trees as closely as possible and shall be maintained that color. The tower and appurtenant equipment design shall be stamped by an engineer licensed to practice in the state. There shall be no commercial use of the tower or antenna. 5. REPORTS u u u ^ Director Joseph stated the Board of Adjustment Alternate Member position, which had been vacant, has been filled. He introduced new-appointee Bruce Grant. There being no further business. Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 8:51 a.m. ie Ri^derer, Reco/ding Secretary