Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2004-12-07RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December?, 2004, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Bill Horton, Members Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, Al Sager, Cliff Dill, and Alternate Jeff Barker Chair Horton, Members Dill, Levine, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent:Member Newsom Chair Horton 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 November 2, 2004 meeting. 2. LOT 27, WOODLAND HEIGHTS. 725 CHICKADEE LANE. APPLICANT: JAMES P. JOHNSON — VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 6.3.C OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated that the applicant, James Johnson, requests a variance to Section 6.3.C.2 “Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited,” the purpose of which is to alleviate zoning and building code infractions stemming from the unpermitted addition of a bedroom and deck to a nonconforming cabin structure. In Fall 2002, the applicant appiied for a building permit through the Larimer County Buiiding Department but did not supply Community Development with the plans for zoning approval. Therefore, the building permit was not issued. Work began on the project, and the Larimer County Building Inspector, Chuck Harris, “red tagged” the project in Spring 2003. In Fall 2003, the Community Development Department notified Mr. Johnson of the zoning violation and Mr. Johnson began an open dialogue with Community Development to determine the best method to alleviate his situation. It was mutually agreed that Mr. Johnson pursue a variance to aliow the expansion of the nonconforming structure. Another option that was discussed was to connect the two structures and remove one of the kitchens. However, that option would have a greater impact on the neighborhood than the requested variance. The Community Development policy for single-family-zoned lots that have multiple residential buildings is that the larger unit is considered the primaiy residence and may be expanded. The smailer unit(s) are considered nonconforming accessory buildings and are subject to standards set forth in Chapter 6, “Nonconforming Use, Structures and Lots.” Therefore, if the applicant had expanded the larger structure and met setback and height standards, a variance would not be necessary. Based on the legal description of the property and the history of the neighborhood, it is Staffs opinion that the appiicant might have two separate buildable lots. Because the applicant proposes to expand one of two existing cabins on a lot that is currentiy zoned for single-family residential, staff recommends a condition of approval be the recording of a deed clarifying that the property is one buildable parcel. This would preclude any potential development on the northern portion of the parcel and offset the expanded nonconforming cabin, thus helping to minimize the impact on the character of the neighborhood. Planner Shirk noted that the Larimer County Building Department will require the issuance of a new building permit. One letter of support was received from a neighbor. James Johnson, the appiicant, was present. Chair Horton asked Mr. Johnson whether he accepted the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Johnson stated that he accepted the conditions and had no plans to develop the second lot. Public Comment: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 7,2004 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to approve the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. The applicant shall obtain proper building permits and subsequent inspections from the Larimer County Building Department. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction clarifying the parcel is a single development lot. This deed restriction shall include the full legal description as it is described on the Special Warranty Deed found at reception number 98090847. A copy of the recorded deed restriction shall be submitted to Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. SECTION 4. T4N, R73W. 2445 HIGHWAY 66. APPLICANT: CRAIG BIGLER — VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-5 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated that the applicant, Craig Bigler, requests a variance to Section 4, Table 4-5, “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front-yard setback of fifteen feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required. The property is zoned “A” — Accommodations. The purpose of this variance request is to allow construction of a detached 48,x32’ storage building. The color of the proposed building will match the house and the building wiil have a dark-green metal roof. The purpose of the building is to provide storage for an RV, tractor, and antique car that are currently stored in the front yard. The applicant plans to remove the existing shed and lean-to, pave the existing driveway, and install landscaping and a split-rail-style fence. The overall impact on the character of the neighborhood would be to increase bulk near the highway but to mitigate that bulk with the removal of existing equipment and buildings and to enhance the “curb appeal” with additional landscaping. Planner Shirk noted that the lot has an unusual shape and topography that greatly limits the buildable area. A high cliff prevents the applicant from meeting the front-yard setback, and the site has an overall average slope of 25%. Another option is to place the building uphill, but this area is served by a steep drive that is constrained on one side by mature trees and by a fence on the other. The applicant has done some excavation in order to move the cliff face back, but has since encountered solid granite. The applicant proposes to build on the only remaining level area on the lot and to locate the structure as close to the base of the cliff as possible, which will place building at a diagonal with the property line. By doing so, only the corner of the building (approximately 75 square feet of floor area) will be located within the front setback. There are several buildings in the nearby vicinity that encroach within the 25-foot setback, so this building would not be out of character with existing development, and the building would be situated more than 30 feet from the edge of the road. Because the appiicant is requesting a variance to build closer to the lot line than normally allowed, staff recommends additional landscaping (beyond the four trees and eleven shrubs required by Landscaping standards set forth in Section 7.5) be planted to provide a greater landscaping buffer in order to offset the additional bulk near the road. Planner Shirk noted that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is not opposed to the variance request. No comments from neighbors were received. Craig Bigler, the applicant, was present and provided an additional landscape plan showing the proposed location of the structure, the driveway, and proposed areas for planting. He stated that his goal is to have a place to park his vehicles out of sight and improve the appearance of his property for his guests at Cliffside Cottages on the adjacent property. He reiterated that the only suitable part of property to build the proposed structure on is the portion requiring the variance request. Member Sager asked whether Mr. Bigler intended to abandon the existing asphalt driveway and asked for clarification on questions posed by CDOT. Mr. Bigler stated that he does not intend to abandon the existing driveway: he has State approval for all entrances and exits on his property. Planner Shirk also noted that all access RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 7,2004 points have been approved by CDOT. The question posed by CDOT was in regard to the building’s orientation to the road, and all issues were resolved. Member Levine stated that although he had initially been opposed to the variance, after viewing the site he felt that the proposed structure would increase the viability of the entire area and have small impact on the setback requirement. He stated that approval of the variance would not be solely for the benefit of the applicant. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3. The shed shall be removed from the front-yard area prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 4. The existing lean-to shall be removed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with landscaping standards set forth in Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code. The required landscaping shall exceed the minimum established in the EVDC by 20% (for example, if the code requires four trees and eleven shrubs, the applicant shall install five trees and thirteen shrubs). 5. LOTS 1, 2, 3, OUTLOT A, AND BROOKSIDE TRACT. 740 MORAINE & 825 RIVERSIDE DRIVE. APPLICANT: TRENDWEST RESORTS. INC. — VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 1.9.E AND SECTION 7.6.G OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE “ Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated that this is a request by Ankrom Moisan Architects, a Portland Oregon company, on behalf of Trendwest Resorts, a Seattle Washington based company. The applicant requests a variance to Section 1.9.E “Height” and Section 7.6.G “Preservation of Vegetation”. The purpose of the height variance request is to allow three accommodations buildings to exceed the height limit to provide a roof covering over mechanical equipment, and one accommodations building to exceed the height limit for a stair tower structure. Building 2 would require a 3’9” variance. Building 3 would require a 5-foot variance, and Building 5 would require a 3’9” variance. The applicant proposes the height variance to allow a pyramid-type enclosure that would conceal mechanical equipment. Building 4 would require a variance of five feet to allow the proposed tower. Planner Shirk stated that the applicant’s intent is to provide architectural variety to the roofline and to provide a view corridor through Building 4. The purpose of the “vegetation protection” variance is to allow a corner of a sports court to extend into the river setback area. The applicant proposes to pave an area that has little riparian value. Planner Shirk noted that there would be no tree or shrub removal, only non-native grasses. This is in an area that has been disturbed in the past by the installation of a sanitary sewer line. It is the staff’s opinion that the proposed landscaping plan, which received a favorable review from the Parks Department, more than offsets any loss of vegetation near the Big Thompson River. Planner Shirk stated that the property could be redeveloped without the requested variances, but the requested height variances would have a minimal negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the zoning in the adjacent areas is Accommodations or Commercial. It is the staff’s opinion that the requested variances would improve the aesthetics of the property by doing two things: (1) various mechanical equipment would be permanently screened by the roof structures, and (2) the tower height would serve to break up an otherwise continuous roof line, thus providing architectural variety. The requested vegetation-protection variance would have no effect on the neighborhood because it is internal to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 7,2004 property and would not be visible off-site except from across the river. The proposed landscaping plan would more than offset the loss of vegetation. Planner Shirk noted that the area of the sport court is relatively level and would not require much fill. On November 15, 2004, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a request to rezone the property to “CO”, and to “overlay” a PUD development plan to redevelop the existing 64 commercial accommodations units at the former Big Thompson Timberlane Lodge into 66 accommodations units. These items, along with an annexation proposal, are scheduled before the Town Board on December 14, 2004. Phone calls were received from two neighbors who were opposed to the height variance only. Shawn O’Donahue from Ankrom Moisan Architects of Portland, Oregon was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the requested height variance on the three residential structures is to conceal mechanical equipment on the roof of the structures. He noted that the units are designed in a “pinwheel” shape, with an entrance on each side of the building, so mounting the equipment on pads at the sides of the buildings would create issues regarding noise and possible damage to the equipment by heavy snow loads dropping onto it from the roof. Covering the equipment would require the applicant to reduce the floor space in each unit to meet the requirements of the PUD. Another alternative would be to install the mechanical units on the roofs and leave them uncovered. Mr. O’Donahue stated that the proposed scale of the buildings is in character with surrounding structures. In regard to the height variance for the stair tower, he stated that two recently approved variances were similar in nature and that allowing the variance would improve the aesthetic qualities of the area. Wayne Helm, representing the owner of the property, Trendwest, was also present at the meeting. He noted that the goal of the applicant in requesting the variances is to make the site as visually clean and well-manicured as possible. Member Levine stated his objection to approving the height variance request on the basis of aesthetics alone. Member Sager stated that lowering the roofs would not allow room for mechanical equipment to be installed on the roofs and that concealing the mechanical equipment is reasonable justification for the variance. Chair Horton noted that placing the mechanical equipment on the ground is more obvious than when it is hidden in the roof structure. Member Dill added that he would rather have extra height in the roof peak than see exposed mechanical equipment on the roof. Member Levine recommended considering the height request for the “pinwheel” roofs, the preservation of vegetation request, and the stair tower request separately. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the requested variance for the preservation of vegetation with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one member absent. CONDiTIONS: 1. Compliance with the applicable development plan. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the requested variance to the height requirements on Buiidings 2, 3, and 5 with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed with one member absent. Those voting “Yes”: Sager, Diii, and Horton. Those voting “No”: Levine. CONDiTIONS: 1. Compliance with the applicable development plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 December 7,2004 It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to DENY the requested height variance to provide a stair tower on Buiiding 4, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. 5. PORTION OF SECTION 7. T4N. R72W OF THE 6th P.M.. 1661 JACOB ROAD. APPLICANT: ROBERT RAPPELL — VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2. OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Bob Rappell, requests a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2, “Base Density and Dimensional Standards" to allow a road setback of thirty feet in lieu of the fifty feet required. The purpose of this variance request is to allow a barn built in 1994 to remain in place. The barn was permitted under Building Permit 94-E9677. At the time the building permit was issued, the required setback was seventy-five feet from the center line of a road. The site plan submitted for the building permit did not include Jacob Road, although a building permit for a garage that was applied for the same year did show the location of Jacob Road. Planner Shirk stated that there does not appear to be any special circumstances associated with this lot. Because the building permit site plan did not contain all the required information (i.e., Jacob Road), the fact that the building permit was issued should not be construed as a “special circumstance.” Planner Shirk noted that the existing barn is not out of character with the neighborhood. The property adjacent to Mr. Rappell’s has a building that is similarly located next to Jacob Road. The existing barn could be relocated to an area that would meet the required setback, although it is staffs’ opinion that would be impractical. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. The Larimer County Building Department noted that Building Permit 94-E9677 needs to be renewed and all required inspections conducted and approved. Correspondence was received from one neighbor who is opposed to this request. Chair Horton questioned what had triggered this variance request when the barn had been in place for ten years. Planner Shirk stated that a neighbor made a code complaint to the code compliance officer. Member Sager questioned whether Jacob Road is a private road or a driveway. Planner Shirk noted that the length of the road and the number of residences it serves are the determining factors. Setbacks do apply to private roads. Director Joseph stated that it is the opinion of Jeannine Haag from the Larimer County Attorney’s Office that, at the time of construction, the setback requirements did apply. He noted that although the 50-foot setback requirement on the north side of the bam is not met, Ms. Haag’s opinion is that it should not be subject to a variance review, because the determination of that lot line has been adjusted in a civil court case. Robert Rappell, the applicant, was present. He stated that he had discussed the issue with the other neighbors in the area and presented a release signed by the individual property owners on October 6, 2004 stating, “As property owners and living on Jacob Road, we have never been inconvenienced by or have a problem with the distance or setback of Bob Rappell’s barn from Jacob Road.” The document was signed by eleven property owners and Mr. Rappell. He stated that when he obtained the building permit for the barn, he presented a copy of a site plan drawn by Rocky Mountain Consultants which showed Jacob Road, but the site plan was not kept by the building department. He stated that the barn had been built as demonstrated on his permit. He noted that if the variance request is denied, his options would be to move the barn closer to the creek or to move the road bed, requiring removal of a large tree. He stated that moving the barn would require digging out the posts which are set in concrete four feet deep and disassembling and reassembling the barn. He stated that the barn was built in compliance with all building department requirements. Public Comment: Wayne Groom, owner of the adjacent property to the west of Mr. Rappell’s property, stated his opposition to the variance request. He stated that the right-of-way RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 December 7, 2004 agreement signed by Mr. Rappell in 1983 allows personal use of the road for property owners and their invitees, but not for commercial purposes. He stated that Mr. Rappell’s building permit for the barn had been completed in a misleading manner, with no record of Jacob Road shown on the application. He stated that the barn did not comply with the required setback and was placed too close to the road. He noted that the permit expired without the appropriate inspections, including a final inspection and an electrical inspection, even though the barn has lights. He stated that people boarding horses at Mr. Rappell’s barn violated the right-of-way agreement. Mr. Groom stated that he desired the discontinuance of the commercial use of the barn and to have the barn moved. He stated that the placement of the barn had impacted himself and his wife personally, that it is a nuisance to their property and causes odors and attracts flies in the summer. It is Mr. Groom’s contention that, if the barn were relocated, the problems may not occur. He stated that the barn was built knowing there were violations, that it caused additional traffic in the area, and that it caused a hardship on himself and his wife. Mr. Groom asked that the barn be relocated or torn down. He noted that the barn is in disrepair. He stated that some of the people who signed the release document presented by Mr. Rappell do not live on the road and are therefore not impacted by the placement of the barn. Board members questioned Mr. Groom about the actual basis for his objections and discussed the apparent lack of a direct connection between the barn setback and Mr. Groom’s concerns. Member Sager requested that, as a part of the motion, the third and fourth paragraphs of the staff report be added to the staff findings. The paragraphs read as follows: The building permit is very clear that the barn “is to be used as an accessory building by the inhabitants of the single-family dwelling on this lot. No commercial use or storage is permitted. No horse boarding or public show/riding is permitted.” The 1993 Larimer County Land Use Code defined “Boarding Stable” as a facility “for the care and feeding of more than four horses for a fee." Based on this definition and the opinion of the Larimer County attorney, Mr. Rappell is legally non-conforming for a boarding stable so long as there are no more than four horses at any time. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with the third and fourth paragraphs of the second page of the staff report added to the staff findings, and the motion passed unanimously with one member absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the applicable building code. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported on the staff-level variance approved on the Weitzel residence at 930 Lakeshore Drive. The request was for a variance from the E-1 Estate 25-foot side-yard setback. The house, built in the mid-80s, was located one foot inside the setback requirement of twenty-five feet. In building an addition, the Weitzels requested to build ten feet of the addition inside the required setback, then Jog the rest of the addition back to meet the setback requirement. The Estes Valley Development Code allows staff to grant setback variances if they are within 10 percent of the setback requirement. Planner Chilcott reported on the variance approved by the Board of Adjustment on August 3, 2004 to applicant Luis Ruiz at 430 Prospect Village Drive, Lot 8 of Prospect Village Subdivision. One condition of the variance was that all furniture would be removed from the outdoor patio by October 1st each year. Although the applicant was not in compliance with the variance as of the last Board of Adjustment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 December 7,2004 meeting on November 2, 2004, they are now in compliance. Planner Chilcott also noted that the steps had been repaired to meet building-code requirements. Planner Chilcott reported on the staff-level variance approved on the Habitat for Humanity residence at 652 Halbach Lane. The request was for a variance from Section 4, Table 4-2, requiring a minimum 15-foot rear-yard setback in the R-1 zoning district. The home was built right up to the setback, and the approved variance allows a couple of steps to project 1.5 feet into the setback. Planner Chilcott reported on the staff-level variance approved on the Vilar residence at 402 Driftwood Avenue. The request was for a variance from Section 4, Table 4-2, requiring a 10-foot side-yard setback and a 15-foot front-yard setback in the R zoning district. The request to build ten feet from the setback, rather than the required fifteen feet, was approved because easements on this vacant lot for electrical lines and the water tunnel reduced the buildable portion of the lot to a small area. Chair Horton confirmed that the next Board of Adjustment meeting will be held Januarv 4,2005. y There being no further business. Chair Horton adjourned the meeting at 9:52 a.m. Bill Horton, Chair ^Juli^^edefer, Recording'Secretary