Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2005-07-12RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 12, 2005, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Dill, Bill Horton, Chuck Levine, and Wayne Newsom Chair Sager; Members Dill, Levine, and Newsom Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Member Horton Chair Sager 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 7, 2005 meeting. 2. METES AND BOUNDS. 3965 Little Valiev Road. Applicant: Michael Bryant — Variance Request from Section 4, Table 4-2, of the Estes Valiev Development Code, requiring a minimum fiftv-foot side-yard setback in the RE - Rural Estate zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated that this is a request for a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2, of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a thirty-foot side-yard setback in the RE - Rural Estate zoning district for construction of a new deck. He stated the home was built in 1952, prior to the implementation of setback requirements, and is approximately forty-six feet from the north side property line of this two-acre lot. Planner Shirk noted the applicant would be required to apply for a variance to make any addition to the north side of the residence, although three sides of the home could be added onto without a variance. At the time the applicant purchased the property in 1990 the zoning was E - Estate, which also required side-yard setbacks of fifty feet. The applicant proposes to build a deck sixteen feet wide by thirty-six feet long, a total of 576 square feet. It is the opinion of planning staff that this request is substantial and does not represent the least deviation that would afford relief. The home has a sliding-glass door opening onto the area where the deck is proposed. Staff supports a deck of some nature but recommends a smaller deck be built. There have been two surveys of the lot performed since 1993; each shows the residence at a different distance from the side-yard lot line. Planner Shirk recommended that the Board consider approving a specified width for the deck addition, rather than approving a specific setback from the property line, due to the fact that the location of the property line is in question. The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent property 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. A letter was received from Linda and Bob Moak of 3960 Little Valley Drive, stating their objection to the proposed variance. Public Comment: The applicant, Michael Bryant, was present. He stated his intention to construct a twelve-foot-wide deck, not one sixteen feet wide. He stated he was unaware of the Moak’s objections to his variance request. Ima Matthies, president of the Little Valley Owners Association was present. She stated the owners’ association’s objection to the proposed variance and noted there had been many years of unresolved conflicts with Mr. Bryant. She called for all Little Valley homeowners present in the audience who were against the proposed I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 12, 2005 variance to stand; fifteen people stood up. She provided the Board members with photos of the variance notice Mr. Bryant posted on his property, which had been altered to state the variance request was for a hog farm, as well as photos of the condition of Mr. Bryant’s property. Jon Sypher of 3825 Star Way, Charles Hanchett of 1640 Black Squirrel Drive, and Jim Matthies of 1637 Black Squirrel Drive also stated their objections to the proposed variance and spoke of a variety of concerns they had with Mr. Bryant’s property over the years. Chair Sager noted that many of the adjacent property owners’ concerns would be better presented In a court of law. Chair Sager and Members Levine and Newsom stated their concerns regarding the discrepancy in the surveys for the northern property line. Director Joseph noted that it’s possible for two different surveyors to come to different conclusions about the location of a property line if their surveys are based on different assumptions. Member Levine clarified with Mr. Bryant that the sliding-glass door had been installed in 1993 and not used since that time. Member Levine also questioned Mr. Bryant about his alteration of the variance notice sign. Chair Sager noted that, given the discrepancies in the surveyors’ determination of where the north property line lay, it would be difficult to approve a variance based on the location of that property line. Director Joseph stated that Mr. Bryant would have the right to select any licensed surveyor and stand by that surveyor’s determination of where the property lay. Member Levine reiterated that the approved variance must provide the least deviation from the standards of the Estes Valley Development Code that would afford relief, noting that a variance request for a landing and steps would have been more appropriate. Finding the requested variance did not provide the ieast deviation from the standards of the Estes Valley Development Code that would afford relief, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to disapprove the requested variance to aiiow a side-yard setback of thirty feet, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. LOT 11. BLOCK 2. FALL RIVER ESTATES. 1069 Fail River Court. Applicant: Ronald and Maureen Koizow — Variance Requests from Estes Valiev Development Code Section 4. Tabie 4-2. requiring minimum 25-foot front-, side-. and rear-yard setbacks in the E-1 - Estate zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a new single-family residence and is requesting a variance to allow a side- yard setback of fourteen feet and front- and rear-yard setbacks of seventeen feet in lieu of the twenty-five foot setbacks required in the E-1 - Estate zoning district. He noted the .42-acre lot is significantly sub-sized for the zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre and for which the 25-foot setbacks were created. The lot Is closer to the size standards for the E - Estate zoning district, which requires fifteen-foot rear-yard and ten-foot side-yard setbacks. The lot has inherent design constraints such as steep slope, drainage, and trees that limit the placement of the residence. These factors combine to create special circumstances. The site plan has been designed so that only the corners of the house would extend into the setbacks. Planner Shirk noted that, because this is a vacant lot, a conforming residence could be built. The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent property 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. While conducting a site visit. Planner Shirk spoke with the neighbors to the south, who had no objection to the plans; their only concern was whether the proposed home would block their view, but it will not. A letter was received from adjacent property owners Ken and Pati Czarnowski of 2180 Blue Spruce Drive, stating they had no objection to the variance request. A letter was also received from RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 12, 2005 adjacent property owner Clark Bussell of 2275 Deer Mountain Drive, stating his objection to the proposed variance. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve a side-yard setback of fourteen feet and a front- and rear-yard setback of seventeen feet in lieu of the required twenty-five-foot setbacks, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDiTIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. Compliance with the approved site pian. 3. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 4. UNIT 1. HOMESTEAD CONDOMINIUMS SUPPLEMENTAL MAP #1. 1850 Fall River Road #1. Applicant: Shirley Olson — Variance Request from Estes Valiev Development Code Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(b), requiring a 30-foot setback from the annual high-water mark of river corridors Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. She stated that the applicant is requesting a ten-foot variance to Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(b), which requires a thirty-foot river setback from the annual high-water mark of the river, to allow an addition to be built twenty feet from Fall River. The existing cabin is located twenty feet from the annual high-water mark; a deck is currently located in the area of the proposed addition. The same setback is requested for the addition to allow the applicant to replace the existing deck with a bedroom closet and expanded kitchen storage area. The fact that the existing cabin already encroaches into the river setback, a deck already exists in the proposed iocation for the addition so no further habitat for wildlife will be lost, and the small size of the existing cabin combine to create special circumstances and practical difficulty will result from strict compliance with the code standard. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be changed. This proposal was submitting to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent property owners for review and comment. The owner has obtained letters of approval from all Homestead Condominium owners. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the requested variance to allow a twenty-foot setback from the annual high-water mark of rivers, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the sun/ey stakes for the 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. LOT 1. CARRIAGE HILLS 8th FILING. 125 Saddleback Lane. Applicant: Robert and Kathy Sherrod — Variance Request from Estes Valiev Development Code Section 4. Table 4-2, requiring a minimum 50-foot front-yard setback in the RE - Rural Estate zoning district Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. She stated that the petitioner is requesting a twenty-six-foot variance to Estes Vailey Development Code Table 4-2, which requires a fifty-foot minimum front-yard setback in the RE - Rural Estate zon- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 July 12, 2005 ing district, for a house addition set back twenty-four feet from the front property line along Fish Creek Way. The petitioner proposes to build a 1,395-square-foot, two- story addition to the existing 2,185-square-foot house as well as a deck addition; the existing house is set back eighty feet from the Fish Creek Way property line. Planner Chilcott noted that if the owner had not dedicated a thirty-foot-wide strip of right-of- way to Larimer County in March 1989, the proposed addition would meet the fifty- foot setback requirement. She stated that special circumstances exist and practical difficulty will result in strict compliance with the code standard. Although approximately half of the proposed addition would encroach into the setback, its distance from Fish Creek Way serves to minimize the impact of the addition. The owners could build a smaller addition or add onto the front of the home without a variance but this would require significant remodeling due to the home’s “envelope” construction. This proposal was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent property owners for review and comment. An email from the adjacent property owners at 175 Saddleback Lane was supportive of the requested variance. Member Dill questioned whether the county opposed the encroachment onto the county easement. Planner Chilcott noted the Larimer County engineer had not expressed concern. Public Comment: Steve Lane of Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the purpose of the proposed addition is to provide a master bedroom on the main floor of the home and that the addition had been designed to match the architectural style of the residence. He stated that the owners are willing to abandon their driveway access to Fish Creek Way if it is disallowed. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Dill) to approve the requested variance to allow a twenty-four foot front-yard setback, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land sun/eyor shall set the survey stakes for the 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. 3. The applicant should provide documentation that the access onto Fish Creek Way was permitted by the County. If it is not permitted, the access should either be blocked or reseeded. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:23 a.m. Al Sager, Chair uli6/Roederer,/Recordinrg Secretary