Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-08-07BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 7, 2001, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Vice Chair Sager, Members Ball, Lamy, and Newsom Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:Chair Barker Vice Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the July 10, 2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. 970 EAST LANE: LOT 48. STANLEY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. APPLICANTS: LARRY & DONNA COULSON - APPEAL STAFF DETERMINATION OF A SEPARATE LEGAL LOT Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is an appeal of staff determination denying separate lot status for the east portion of Lot 47, Stanley Heights Subdivision. Staff findings were as follows: Lots 47 and 48 were owned by the same individual in 1952. That year the owner conveyed Lot 47, except for the easterly one-acre area which he retained ownership to together with Lot 48. A private restrictive covenant was in effect in 1952 that prohibited the subdivision of property in Stanley Heights into lots smaller than two acres (refer to Exhibit D of the staff report). At no time has the east portion of Lot 47 been conveyed into ownership separate from either Lot 47 or Lot 48. A conforming subdivision of the 4-acre Coulson property into two separate 2.5 acre lots is not possible. Since 1952, the east portion of Lot 47 and Lot 48 have always been owned by the same individual(s) and always conveyed together. These two areas have never been used separately or taxed separately. All deeds conveying the east portion of Lot 47 and 48 both prior and subsequent to 1972 have referred to the property in the singular (lot or parcel, NOT lots or parcels). Issuance of a second building permit for the subject property would constitute a violation of the RE-Rural Estate, 2.5 acre minimum lot area. Single Family Residential zoning now in place. The east portion of Lot 47 does not meet the definition of LOT. Section 13.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code defines LOT as...”a platted parcel of land intended to be separately owned, developed and otherwise used as a unit.” Based on the foregoing, it is staff’s determination that the one-acre easterly portion of Lot 47 does not constitute a separate legal lot for which a building permit can be issued. Issuance of a building permit would violate the RE-Rural Estate 2.5 acre minimum lot area Single Family Residential zoning now in place. Applicant Larry Coulson, 970 East Lane, owner of subject property, introduced neighbors and homeowners association president who were present supporting the request. He bought the property as “one lot with the option to buy the additional one-acre lot.” They bought both properties with the intention to build a house on the 1 -acre lot, and use the existing residence for investment purposes. After early discussions with Bob Joseph who indicated it would be considered a single lot, he went to the County Planning Office and spoke with Al Kadera. Mr. Kadera advised that it was a legal separate lot. Mr. Hepsley of the County BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 7,2001 Page 2 Assessor’s Office advised it could be separated. These have always been separate lots; an amended plat has never been recorded to combine the two lots. All recorded deeds refer to separate lots with separate legal descriptions. On a site plan prepared by Estes Park Surveyors, (refer to handouts) this portion of Lot 47 does not touch the road so could not have been used for access purposes. Right of way was acquired from the owner of Lot 49 which bypasses the one acre lot (Lot 47). The covenants requiring the 2-acre minimum expired in 1965 because property owners did not wish to support them. The County Health Department did not foresee any problem with using a septic should they not be able to access the public utility line from The Reserve. The applicant maintains that since there has never been an amended plat, these have always been two separate legal lots. John Phipps, attorney, also was present to represent the applicant and spoke to the Board. Both immediate neighbors on each side are present and have no objection to having a house built upon the subject property. Deeds in the chain of title and real estate taxation were the only issues referred to by Director Joseph. Several lots have been included in single deeds with never the intent to combine the lots, and the same applies to tax records. Never has a metes and bounds description been used to include both lots. Mr. Phipps objected to new arguments that were presented last Friday as not sufficient time for review but wished to proceed anyway. Utilities and access should not be an issue as both are available. Mr. Phipps pointed out that the easterly portion of Lot 47 meets the definition of “Lot of Record” as defined in Section 13.3 #146 of the EVDC. Lot 47 was landlocked at the first subdivision which would create an easement by way of necessity. An access easement was granted in 1969 across Lot 49. Romers built the driveway across Lot 47 in 1982. The owner of Lot 49, George Prohaska, is willing to enter into a new access agreement across Lot 49 if necessary. The current use of the Development Code is taking away property owner rights that this is a separate legal lot. Pamphlet from Al Kadera and Definition 146 of EVDC supports their request that this is a legal lot. Private property rights have been supported on federal and state level. Mr. Phipps answered questions regarding access. Mr. Joseph showed an aerial photograph dated June 7, 1979 showing that the driveway to Lot 48, (referred to in Ms. Romer’s letter) was constructed and clearly appears on the 1979 photo. Mr. Coulson and Mr. Phipps clarified earlier statements for the Board. Town Attorney White advised that the zoning was not an issue. The question the Board needs to determine is whether this is a separate legal lot. The applicant asserts that since 1952 when Lot 47 was divided, it has been conveyed as a separate legal lot. It is staff’s interpretation that it was never a separate buildable lot and has been conveyed only as part of Lot 48 since that time. Staff asserts that a third legal lot was not created in 1952 or since 1952. Mr. Phipps restated that the pamphlet describing Legal Lots from the County allows the separate lot designation. Definition 146, Lot of Record, of the EVDC also supports their right. Staff agrees that the division of Lot 47 in 1952 was a legal division but Definition 146 cannot be relied on solely to determine the question that a third buildable lot was created. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 7,2001 Public Comment: None. Page 3 Board member Newsom noted that none of the neighbors were objecting and a similar access situation was present on another lot in the neighborhood. Vice Chair Sager appreciated staff’s research and requested a motion. Based on the support of the neighbors, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) that staff finding was in error and that this is a buildable iot. The motion was a tie vote. Those voting “yes”: Ball, Newsom. Those voting “no”: Lamy, Sager. Motion failed. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to deny the appeal to staffs position. The motion was a tie vote. Those voting “yes”: Lamy, Sager. Those voting “no”: Ball, Newsom. Motion failed. Due to the circumstances, discussion was continued to the next meeting when a 5th Board Member would be present to break the tie vote. 3. 2334 HiGHWAY 66. APPLICANT: JEAN SMITH. RiVER SPRUCE, INC. - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-5 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Jean Smith was present and reviewed her request to add an 18X8 foot addition for storage and bathroom, and a 10X7 foot addition to the kitchen to the existing manager’s building. Planner Chilcott reviewed the Staff Report and recommendations. The special circumstances and practicai difficulties are adequate to justify a variance. The proposed additions should be built with the same materiais and in the same style and color so the essential character of the neighborhood wiii not be substantially altered and so adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment. Reference was made to a memo from Stan Griep, Plans Examiner for the Larimer County Buiiding Department, which identified three building issues: (1) if there is less than 6 feet between structures, one-hour fire-wall assemblies would be required, (2) the foundation plans for the additions shouid be prepared by a Colorado Registered Structural Engineer, and (3) proper clearances to the power lines extending over the two additions must be maintained. An easement should be obtained for the existing overhead power line. Applicant questioned having to hire a Colorado Registered Structurai Engineer. This was presented by the County pian reviewer and a buiiding permit issue. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings and recommendations, it was moved and seconded (Lamy/Bali) to approve the variance to ailow a front setback of 9 feet with the following conditions. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. 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. The proposed additions shaii be built in the same styie as the existing building. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 7,2001 Page 4 2. A one-hour fire-wall assembly shall be installed on all walls where there is less than six feet between structures. 3. A Colorado Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare the foundation plans for the additions. 4. Proper clearances to power lines shall be maintained per the requirements of the 1999 National Electrical Code, as enforced by the State of Colorado. 5. The property owner shall provide a setback certification by a registered land surveyor for the front setback. 6. An easement shall be provided for the existing overhead power line. 7. The driveway shall be re-identified as a restricted driveway. 4. LOT 19. KIOWA RIDGE SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: CHRISTOPHER & CHRISTINE PISCIOTTA - HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Steve Nichol of Portfolio Group was present representing the applicant and drew the attention of the Board to the drawing which indicated those areas that exceeded the 30-foot limit. The requested variance is three feet, or 10%, which is not substantial. Vice Chair Sager noted that the site plan and vicinity map were omitted from the packet and should be included. Planner Chllcott reviewed the Staff Report. Staff findings were that special conditions on the site were adequate to justify the height variance. Public Comment: None. Based on the steep slope and the minor variance requested, It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve a height variance of 33 feet as opposed to 30 feet as required In the E-1 zoning district with the following condition. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Buildirig Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. The roofing material and exterior color of the house shall blend with the natural backdrop. 5. 3442EAGLECLIFFCIRCLEDRiVE.LOT7A.BLOCK7,WiMPCLIFFESTA^ gTHcMMf^ appiigaNT: bill WALTERS-height variance REQUESI FROM SECTON 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Bill Van Horn and Matthew Reiser of Van Horn Engineering were present representing the applicant. Planner Shirk distributed a recent letter from the Chambord I Association and reviewed the staff report. The lot is characterized by a 20-25% slope and is undersized for the E-1 district. A conforrning structure could be built; however such a structure could be considered out of character for the Windcliff neighborhood. Staff does not considerth® substa.r^t'f ■ The owner purchased the lot in October 2000 after the EVDC and associated height limit were implemented. Staff findings were that special conditions on the site were adequate to justify the height variance. Scott Dorman, Fire Chief, suggested using a more fire-resistive construction material; however, this site does not appear to be located in a wildfire hazard area. The Building Department will verify at the time of building permit issuance. The Architectural Control Committee of the Alpine Meadow Home Owners Association has reviewed the request and has no objection. The letter from the Chambord (condominium) BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 7,2001 Page 5 Association is in opposition to the variance; however, they are located on the uphill side of the proposed residence where the height variance would not be visible. Matthew Heiser advised that the applicant agrees to staff recommendations. Bill Van Horn noted that the top of the Walters residence would probably not even come up to the bottom of the Chambord building. Every attempt has been made to tuck this into the slope and should not encroach on the view from the condo building above. Vice Chair Sager recommended the new method of showing the areas above 30 feet crosshatched on a roof design. Public Comment: Donna Raith, president of the Chambord Condominium Association, spoke in opposition to the request as it would affect their views and expressed concern over potential drainage problems. Bill Walters, owner of subject property, advised he has made the effort to reduce the appearance of height by reducing the roof pitch and will use non-reflective roof material. Bill Sharp chairman of the Alpine Architectural Control Committee, advised that the area was created as a PUD and that is why the smaller lot sizes, but there is sufficient green space to offset that. There is no limitation in their architectural criteria for house size other than a 38-foot height limitation. He spoke in approval, as this structure will be lower than some of the newer homes going in around them. Based on the steep slope, it was moved and seconded (Lamy/Ball) to approve a height variance of 35 feet as opposed to 30 feet as required in the E-1 zoning district with the following conditions. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. 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. Submittal of a building permit application demonstrating: a. Compliance with the submitted site plan, b. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall c. Exterior3colorsdshall be muted and selected to blend in with the 2. Priorto issuance ofCertficate of Occupancy, submittal of a heigW^ificalior. certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. This certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the approved site plan. 179 CENTENNIAL DRIVE: LOT 12. CENTENNIAL HILLS SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: JEFF HANCOCK It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to accept the applicant’s withdrawal. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. 7. REPORTS None. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 7, 2001 Page 6 There being no further business, Vice Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m. Al Sager, Vice Chair^