Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2004-03-02RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 2, 2004, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Bill Horton, Members Jeff Barker, Wayne Newsom, A1 Sager, and Cliff Dill Chair Horton, Members Barker, Newsom, Sager and Dill Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:None Chair Horton called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the February 3, 2004 meeting. 2. PART OF LOTS 10 & 20. MCCREERY SUBDIVISION, 1278 DEVILS GULCH ROAD. APPLICANT: ELIZABETH NICHOLSON - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a twenty-three foot variance from the fifty foot rear yard setback to build a deck addition twenty-seven feet from the rear (southern) property line. The proposed deck is approximately 750 square feet, with approximately 400 square feet encroaching into the setback. There is a small existing deck which encroaches into the rear yard setback. This deck would be removed and a new larger deck installed if the variance is approved. The property owner is preparing to remodel the existing single-story cabin which was built in 1920 and is approximately 750 square feet. The cabin encroaches into the rear setback; however, remodel work does not require a variance. The lot is undersized for the “RE-I" Rural Estate zoning district. This lot fits more closely with the “E-1” Estate zoning district which has twenty-five foot minimum setback requirement from all property lines. The existing residence can continue to be used and can be remodeled as proposed by the owner with the exception that only the portion of the deck not encroaching into the setback could be built. This is a forty-six percent variance which is substantial. The proposed deck will not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not be highly visible from other properties. Paul Brown, 254 Solomon Drive, was present to represent the owners. He stated the water line and sewer in the current kitchen are not accessible; therefore the kitchen is being relocated. The current kitchen will be turned into a bedroom. The existing deck will be abandoned and replaced with a larger vyrap around deck. The current water service line will be placed in an additional pipe and heat taped for insulation. Public Comment: None. Based on the fact there is no adverse affect on the neighboring properties due to distance between homes and the large rock formations, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve a twenty-three foot (23) variance from the fifty foot (50) rear yard setback to build a deck twenty-seven feet (27) from the rear (southern) yard setback and the motion passed unanimousiy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 March 2,2004 2. EVDC Appendix D.VII Tree and Vegetation Protection During Construction and Grading Activities shall apply. 3. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. LOT 6. BLOCK 3. WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5TH SUBDIVISION. 3225 EIGER TRAIL. APPLICANT: TOM & MARSHA CONNARD - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance from the “E- 1” Estate 25 foot side yard setback requirements to allow a northern side yard setback of 21 feet and a southern side yard setback of 15-22 feet. The variances are being requested to build a house on a sub-sized lot with slopes of approximately 40%. Staff does not find a hardship exists, except for the location of the garage. Because the lot is of sufficient width, and is of a similar lot size for the neighborhood, there is no special circumstance in terms of the variance for the house. The house could be designed to allow the use for which the lot is zoned. The applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Jamie Kenney of Westover Construction was present to represent the owners. She stated the house was pushed to the south due to a drainage area to the north. The owners are willing to remove the staircase along the garage to reduce the setback variance request to the south from 15 feet to 18 feet. The house has been designed to follow the contours of the property in order to meet the height requirements of the code. She also stated that the owners are trying to build a home that would be comparable in value to other homes in the neighborhood. Board Member Barker questioned whether or not there were attempts made to design a house that would fit on the vacant lot. Ms. Kenney stated attempts were made to design a house that would conform to the setbacks and still have a home that would fit with the character of the neighborhood. Bob Iwanicki, designer for Westover Construction, discussed the design constraints of the lot. He stated the building envelope is only 60 feet wide and that the lot is very steep. He suggested the house would be taller if it were placed within the setbacks due to the steepness of the lot. Public Comment: Bill Sharp, Chairman of the Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association Architectural Control Committee, stated there is some need for a setback variance for this property. The committee feels the north wall of the home at 21 feet from the property line is appropriate. They feel the south variance is in excess and would like to see the staircase along the garage removed. They are also suggesting the variance to the south be limited to 4 feet. Mr. Sharp stated the committee supports the project with the requested changes to the setbacks. Chair Horton stated individuals should understand there are setback requirements when they purchase a lot and that a home needs to be designed to fit within those setbacks. Based on the recent purchase of the lot and knowledge of the setback requirements it was moved (Horton) that all setbacks be disapproved. No second was heard and the motion died. Based on the approvai of the adjoining property owner to the north, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a four foot (4) variance from the twenty-five foot (25) side yard setbacks to the north and the south with the removal of the staircase along the garage to build a single-family house twenty-one feet (21) from the side yard setbacks to the north and the south and the motion passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Buiiding Permit has not been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 March 2, 2004 Issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Submittal of a revised site plan delineating compliance with the approve variance. 2. Compliance with the revised site plan. 4. PORTION OF SE V4 OF THE SE Va OF SECTION 27. T5N. R73W, APPLICANT: JAMES & EUNICE DOCTER - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This request would allow an eastern side yard setback of 10 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required by the Estes Valley Development Code to build a single-family dwelling, for which the lot is zoned. This lot was created in 1963, and has been deemed a legal lot under the guidelines set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. A 10 foot right-of-way exists from the northwest property corner to Tanager Lane, and a road access easement is in place from the southeast property corner to Laurel Lane. The applicant proposes to keep the existing garage, though the stated primary access will come from a new drive to Laurel Lane. The lot is narrow and sub-sized for the “E-1” zoning district. The proposed structure is similar is size and shape to existing homes in the neighborhood, and would be further from the property line than several nearby structures. A conforming house could be built on the lot, though any structure that met all setback requirements could only be 25 feet wide. Staff suggests moving the proposed house to the west, placing more of the impact on the Docters who own the adjacent property. The house should also be moved further south to meet the 10 foot building separation required by the code and to save the tree shown between the garage and the proposed house. Variance request is a separate issue from the legal lot and access issues. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the owners. He stated the owners are in agreement with staffs suggested changes to the east and west setbacks. The owners are confused by staffs requirement for a 40 foot southern property line setback. Mr. Sheldon advised the owners might want to attach the proposed house to the current garage, which would move the house further north. He stated access is not an issue with regard to this variance request; however, access to the property is driving the design of the proposed house. The owners are looking for a building envelope in which they would be allowed to build. He advised the owners have legal access from both Tanager Road and Laurel Lane. Board Member Sager question their intent to attach the proposed house to the garage. Mr. Sheldon stated the owners would like the option to attach the house to the garage with a breezeway, but there are some considerations to look at first. Planner Shirk stated a breezeway was not discussed with this proposal and a setback variance would only be considered for the submitted site plan. Planner Shirk advised it is important for the character of the neighborhood that the trees on the lot be saved. He is concerned that attaching the garage and proposed house may damage the root system of the tree. Public Comment: Janice Lee, part owner of 741 Laurel Lane, spoke in opposition to the requested variance. She believes the lot is not part of the Woodland Heights subdivision or a legal lot. She stated the proposed home would impact other wells in the area, negatively impact trees and their root systems, play area, etc. She feels a house could be built to meet the setback requirements. She also discussed the negative impacts of locating access on Laurel Lane. Long, part owner of 741 Laurel Lane, spoke in opposition to the requested ice. He feels the lot Is too small to build a house with a well in the “E-1” zoning Elvin variance. district. He stated the house to the west was built across the lot line which provides evidence the original owner considered the lots as 1 parcel. He spoke to concerns regarding access from Laurel Lane. He stated if the access is allowed on Laurel RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 March 2,2004 Lane it would place the driveway within 5 feet from the back door of the property to the south of the driveway, and mature trees would need to be removed. Tom O’Neil, 702 Tanager Road, spoke in opposition to the requested variance unless the house can be pushed west and south. He spoke to concerns regarding access from Tanager Road. He stated that Tanager is a dirt road and already serves numerous homes. Janice Lee stated there are only 9.5 feet between the edge of Laurel Lane and the first tree that would need to be removed to place the driveway. Lonnie Sheldon stated Lot 14 is not a part of Woodland Heights subdivision. He advised there are already 2 wells established one for each lot. Access to the property has been discussed with the neighbors. Access off of Tanager Road has been discussed to lessen the impact to the neighboring properties to the east. He stated the proposed driveway off of Laurel would be 20 feet from the home to the south. Board Member Sager stated that a house could be built to fit within the setbacks and be livable. He questioned whether the owners have considered changing the shape or size of the proposed house. Jim Docter stated they have given considerable thought to the design; however the house design has not be finalized because the access has not been decided which will determine the location of the home. Board Member Sager feels they have not made every effort to make the house fit within the setbacks. Mr. Sheldon stated the owners are trying to build a house that is livable and comparable in size with the rest of the neighborhood. Director Joseph stated the Board is obligated to minimize the variance request to the extent possible. He asked why the Board should hear this request before the access issue has been resolved. Resolving the access would help define the plans and minimize the request. Mr. Sheldon agreed that the plans have changed due to the access question. He stated the size, shape, and narrowness of the lot are hardships. They were hoping the Board could recognize the hardship and grant them some relief with a building envelope in which to build the house. Kris O’Neal, 702 Tanager Road, questioned what body would address the legal access. Director Joseph stated that it was a legal matter to be addressed in the court system. Eunice Docter stated they have spent a lot of time designing the home with architect Dennis Reinke. She stated they have a plan with a narrower footprint that would work on the site. Board Member Barker stated he would like to see more site specific request come before the Board. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Sager) to continue the request to the April 6, 2004 meeting and the motion passed unanimously. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Horton ad]he meeting at 10:20 a.m. Bill Horton, Jacqu^n WilliamWilliamson, Recording Secretary