Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2006-08-01RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 1,2006, 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 Bruce Grant 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 July 11,2006 meeting. . « ^ There being no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2 I OT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 3, OF THE REPLAT_Of ■ I r>Tg 1 X, 2. BLOCK 3. FALL RIVER ESTATES. 1051 Fall River Court, Applicant: Rnhrhauah Properties. LLC — Variance request from Estes Valley Developmeig 4 4. Table 4-5. to allow a storage shed to remain 10 feet from theCode Section side-yard lot line in Accommodations-zoned lieu of the 25-foot side-vard setback required for A- orooerties that abut residential-zoned properties Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to allow an eight- bv-twelve-foot storage shed to remain ten feet from the petitioners property line that abuts Fall River Estates Outlet F, a residentially zoned lot. The petitioners Pr°PertyJf zoned A-Accommodations] the minimum side-yard setback is increased from fifteen feet to twenty-five feet if accommodations property abuts a residential-zoned lot. Althouah the petitioner’s lot exceeds the minimum lot size, nearly half the lot is unbuildable due to river and arterial-road setbacks; all development is conce"t[>®t®(? the eastern half of the lot, portions of which are steeply sloped. These ,ssu®s to create special circumstances for the lot. While the variance reques^ c°^ b k considered substantial because the entire storage shed encroaches into the setback the variance is not substantial in that the building is only ninety-six square feet Planning staff finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantial y altered The adjoining property will be minimally impacted because it is an undevelopable, open-space outlet. The shed could be located so that it complies with the required setbacks; however, the petitioner has noted that locating the shed elsewhere on the property would require significant grading and retaining walls and would be much more obtrusive. Another alternative would be to build an addition to the manager’s unit to increase storage capacity. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to n^Qhboring orooertY owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Upper Thomson Sanitation District, which stated the District has no objections to the requ^est No comments were received from neighbors. Planning staff recommends approval o the variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 August 1, 2006 Public Comment: Phil and Dot Rohrbaugh of Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC were present. In response to a question from Member Sager, they stated the end of the storage shed that is light in color and obvious from Fall River Court could be resided with redwood to match the adjacent building. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3, of the Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, to allow a storage shed to remain 10 feet from the side-yard lot line in lieu of the 25-foot side-yard setback required for A-Accommodations-zoned properties that abut residentiai-zoned properties, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the addition of condition #2, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: ..... ^ 1. The structure shall be shown on the Aspen Winds final condominium map ana compliance with the variance shall be verified at that time. 2. Siding shall be added to the shed so that it matches the adjacent building. 3. A pnPTinM r>F THE SE % OF SECTION 16. T5N. R73W OF THE 6th P.M., 2760 M Pivpr Road. Applicant: Daniel Ludlam on behalf of Inn Owners Association, Inc from Section 4.4. Table 4-5. to allow decks to be extended to within 1^ th^ girie-vard lot lines in lieu of the 15-foot side-^d setback regujmd along the eastern property iine and the 25-foot side-yard sefeack along t q line, as required for A-Accommodations-zoned properties tliat abut residentiai-zoned properties Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is ua/ec1uest al'°^ ,tah® expansion of existing decks at an accommodations facility that was built in the late 1960s. The current decks are five feet wide; the applicant wishes to make them ten feet wide. The specific variance requests are as follows: 1. Alpine House: east side-yard setback of twelve feet in lieu of the required fifteen 2. FaL Valley Inn: east side-yard setback of ten feet In lieu of the required fifteen feeb 3. Fawn Valley Inn: west side-yard setback of ten feet in lieu of the tvyanty^iv® e . required when an A-Accommodations-zoned property abuts a residential-zoned property. In reviewing whether special circumstances exist. Planner Shirk stated the burdea °f demonstrat?ng such is incumbent upon the applicant. It is P!annin9 ®.op'"he west there are not special circumstances associated with the variance request for the west orooertv line It is plausible that special circumstances tied to the condominium map exist for the interior lot lines. The Alpine House and east side of Fawn Valley Inn share a lot line with adjacent condominium associations; they surround a common site with sharcd Lcess ar^d a central pool area. The variance request for this portion of the srte Sd haSf mhimal impact on the neighborhood. The variance request for the westernmost property line would have more of an impact on the neighborhood due to the fact that it is adjacent to a residentially zoned property that is not part of the Faw Valley condominium development. Should the Board aPProvet.th.ehpw|® expansion planning staff recommends the applicant comply with the ^a Development Code’s district buffer landscaping standards for approximately fifty fee S the western property line. The decks could be expanded without the requested variances. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring ImpeTownS consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to co.de,comPl'a™®0Jrf XE s<afi public services. No comments were received from neighbors. Planning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 1,2006 recommends approval of the eastern side-yard setback variances and disapproval of the western side-yard setback variance. Discussion followed among the Board members and planning staff regarding the suggested landscaping requirements. Public Comment: Lindsay Lamson, representative of the Inn Owners Assocation, Inc. and condominium unit owner at Fawn Valley Inn, provided the history of the development of Fawn Valley Inn, which was built in the 1960s, and requested the Board approve all the requested variances. He noted that the setbacks were ten feet prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code in 2000. He stated the adjacent residence to the west is at least 130 feet away and is oriented away from the Inn. The decks they wish to replace do not meet current building code standards; the proposed new decks would. He noted that approving variances for all but the westernmost decks would result in a visually unpleasing appearance. He stated his concerns about fire mitigation if additional landscaping is required along the western property line. When questioned by Member Levine, he stated that not all unit owners have committed to increasing the size of their decks; the deck upgrades must be paid by the individual unit owners. Planner Shirk noted the decks could be replaced in their current conformation without the need for a variance. Mr. Lamson agreed but noted there is not much incentive for unit owners to pay for a new deck if the size is not increased. Judith Hoyt of 2760 Fall River Road, Unit 209, stated she is the owner of the third-floor condominium at the western end of the development. She stated it would create a hardship for her if all the decks were upgraded except the ones at the western end of the building and would result in a loss of value for her property. She encouraged the Board to approve the requested variance for the west property line, no^ng it would be an enhancement for everyone if the decks were uniform in design. She stated her desire to upgrade and maintain her property. Further discussion ensued between Board members and staff regarding the suggested landscaping. Planner Shirk stated he did not recommend landscaping along the entire western property line, only for a length of approximately fifty feet. He thf se^ba<^ reauirements are in place to protect adjacent landowners. Member Lynch stated that landscaping would not mitigate the impact of decks on the third story of the bu!l^^,"9 suggested that continuity in design would address the problem more so than strict adherence to the setback requirement. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow a western side-yard setback of 10 feet for the Fawn Valley Inn to approve the variance request to allow an eastern side-yard setback of 10 feet for the Fawn Valley Inn, and to approve the variance request of 12.5 feet for the Alpine a Portion of the SEVa of S16-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., 2760 Fall River Road, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: . . ^ 1. Full compliance with the applicable building code. 2. Prior to final inspection, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor verifying compliance with approved variances and site plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 August 1,2006 4. A PORTION OF LOT 13. HIGH PINES SUBDIVISION, 846 Turquoise Trail, Applicant: Britt Family Trust. Frank & Kathleen Britt, co-trustees — Variance from Section 4.3. Tabie 4-2. to aiiow a setback of 14 feet along the north and west property lines in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1-Estate zoning district in order to aiiow an existing non-conforming addition to remain Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to reduce the required setback along the northern and western property lines from twenty-five feet to fourteen feet. The purpose of the request is to allow a bedroom addition constructed in the early 1990s to remain in its current location. The addition was built without a building permit and encroaches into an Upper Thompson Sanitation District sewer easement as well as the setback. The applicant has agreed to remove that portion of the addition that encroaches into the easement, and to obtain all necessary building permits. The applicant’s lot, at 0.13 acres, is significantly sub-sized for the E^-Estate zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. The lot is closer in size to lots in the R-f?es/denf/a/zoning district, which has front and rear minimum setbacks of fifteen feet and side-yard setbacks of ten feet. The applicant’s lot is a triangular shape; when the current setbacks are applied, a 97-square-foot building area is all that remains. It is planning staff’s opinion that the building addition is in character with the neighborhood of “summer cabins” and that the requested variance is not substantial. Because the addition has been in place for fourteen years, allowing it to remain will not have any additional impact on the character of the neighborhood. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring oroperty owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services Eleven letters of support for the Britts were received; approximately half the letters were from residents of the Turquoise Trail neighborhood, the remainder were received from Estes Park area residents. Lonnie Shddon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to rePresent the applicant. He stated the applicant would like to modify the shaPe °f the addition to be removed; they prefer to remove only the portion that extends into the sewer easement. He also requested that staff’s recommended conditions of approval #1 and #2 be modified to provide an additional month to prepare plans and comply with applicable building codes. Frank “Mike” and Kathy Britt, the applicants, stated they live in a rural part of Ohio Lere building permits are not required. Because their property at/46 TurPu0,sa Trail is outside town limits, they had assumed no permit was required when they built the addition. They have been working with Upper Thompson Saa,tftl°". .D'^r,^tb November 2004 and have investigated relocating the sewer line but c0U>d n°t aPtain a two-foot easement from the adjacent property owner to do so. Theynotedmeyhave already removed a deck and are willing to remove the portion of their addition that extends into the Upper Thompson Sanitation District easement. Meredith Sloan, adjoining property owner at 440 E. Riverside Drive, stated she has no objection to the requested setback variance. She stated her concern i’e9ard'a9 adeouate access to the sewer line and whether the property line shown on t submitted plans is accurate. She questioned what would happen ifthY®™ndCeshete approved and the location of the property line proved to be incorrect She sta ed she is unwilling to grant an easement for the sewer line to encroach on her Pr°Padyo Joseph suggested that the variance be based on the location of the sewer easem rather than on the location of the property line. Mr. Sheldon responded, stating surveying had been done to the l'lle’ recorded sewer easement description had been used, and the sewer ine had Peaa visually inspected by lifting the manhole covers in order to establish the location of t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 August 1, 2006 line. He stated no guesswork was involved; the submitted drawing reflects the actual location of the sewer line. Mrs. Sloan requested that the variance be based on the sewer line location. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to approve the variance request for a Portion of Lot 13, High Pines Subdivision, to allow a north property-line setback of fourteen feet, and to allow the existing structure to remain up to the easterly boundary of the Upper Thompson Sanitation District sanitary sewer easement, in iieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-^-Estate zoning district, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with an additional month allotted for conditions #1 and #2, and the motion passed unanimousiy. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall submit a building permit application to the Larimer County Building Department no later than September 30, 2006. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable building code issues no later than September 30, 2007. 3. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall submit a certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor verifying the building does not encroach into the sanitary sewer easement. A copy of this certificate shall be presented to Community Development and to Upper Thompson Sanitation District. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 9:31 a.m.