The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-09-11BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 11, 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 Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the August 7, 2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2 970 EAST LANE: LOT 48. STANLEY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION^ APPI ICANTS: LARRY & DONNA COULSON - APPEAL STAFF DETERMINATION OF A SEPARATE LEGAL LOT Town Attorney White announced that this was a continuation of a hearing from the Auqust 7, 2001, meeting. Chair Barker who was absent at that meeting has listened to the tape from the August 7,2001, meeting. Director Joseph reviewed the main points of the prior staff report. No new additional information was added. Larry Coulson, applicant, gave a brief review of their appeal. Member Lamy commented that the new house appeared to be in a view corridor. Mr. Coulson Lvised that the neighbors were here at the last meeting to confirm that their views were not impacted. John Phipps, attorney for the Coulsons, reviewed the legal points and cited sections of the EVDC which supported their appeal. Member Newsom inquired of the Town Attorney regarding the |egalstatus0fAI Kaderfas7n employee of the County Planning Office since Mr. Kadera had advised this was a legal lot. Mr. White advised that a legal non-conforming lot would still allow for a single family residence. It is staff’s opinion that tl^eP°rt!° of Lot 47 and Lot 48 have been considered one lot since its division and the portton of Lot 47 does not meet the definition of a “legal lot.” Based on he current zoning, there is not sufficient property for Mr. Couison to su^diyide th property into two lots. Town Attorney White found no precedent for this type of situation in legal proceedings in the State of Colorado. Mr Coulson pointed out that the exhibit showing the plat of the subdivision Indicates a totle between the two lots. Town Staff maps do not show the interior lot line. Director Joseph advised it was staff’s opinion that when Lot 47 was divided an StonaSing lot was not created. It only reduced the size of Lot 47 and BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 11,2001 Page 2 increased the size of Lot 48. Staff beiieves the intent was a iot line adjustment at the time Lot 47 was divided. Public Comment: None. Based on the duties of the Board of Adjustment and staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to deny the appeal to staff s interpretation. The motion passed. Those voting “yes : Lamy, Newsom, Sager. Those voting “no”: Ball, Barker. „ inT7, block, ■ .TTi cwai I fV9"° FILING; Tpr. HUMMINGBIRD DRIVE3- l.oL7.?;^aBML°CM?CH^ VgHVLLIS COUH INFY - SETBACK VARI^ Director Joseph advised that this request has been continued to the October meeting. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to continue the yariance request to the October 2,2001 meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 4. 1810 FLOWER LANE: PORTiONOFTHE ICQ^ 1 hS tmi 1 FYDEVBLOPlENr CODE Director Joseph reviewed thestaff report.Th® r®^e ac which iS to allow for a setbac^1,y?riai?cPe °tp2^on The buildable area for an undersized for this ‘ RE Rural ^ta 9 1.imiteC| Buiiding is restricted to the attached garage and hobby °nt!^tue s0uth by a drainage swale. Due to the north by relatively steep slopes andto . . dyextendjng to the west or east narrowness of the lot where ‘hr® l^^ld bfrequired to extend to the would require a variance A greater variance ,s re|atively small, west than to the east. Th® Pr°p° ®f am2nd"S area to the house. If the adding a total of 968 square feet o g mDa.u)ie with the existing homes proposed addition were built T.® s^'®a'fentoUmpact on the character of the in the area, this would help TXtinq qarage in relation to Flower Lane neighborhood. The location of ‘h® e"S,infhf p^erty owner should contact sraSo'xir.s'iS •«« « disagreement with the request. Dell Babbitt, applioanL revtewedthek^equest They wish to have meg an9 , house on one level. The old garagewouiu ^ nej hborSi the Groves, regarding — me two properties. Director Joseph advised that Candace Wn's memo is informational and does not need to be included as part of the motion. Public Comment: None. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 11,2001 Pagesjtember 11,2001 Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve a side yard property line setback of 27 feet as opposed to 50 feet as required in the RE zoning district with the following conditions. Motion passed unanimously. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been 'ssued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the da rThaeripropeerty9ownlfshall provide a setback certificate by a registered land 2. So0pre0rt;olt?h:ild"'a utility easement tor the existing power 3. the property owner shall not use the existing single car garage as a garage. _ — — r^i ir>ICIOM APPLICANTI A.3. TABLE 4-2 Or i i-ii= cp i * —------------------------- Director Joseph reviewed the J54ac£uShofSa new two-story the mandated 50-foot slde,ya[^lf|^gDr0„0tsed new residence would extend 25 single-family residence and de® ' d the proposed deck would extend an feet into the 50-foot side yard setback and »ePotPs undersized for the zoning additional nine feet, fora total j 10 acres and this lot is only 1.7 district. The minimum lot size for tee RE l to rockfor(nations acres. The buildable area oat^'sruan^? f“ variance from the 50-foot side yard and trees. This is a request for a 34 foot vana (he neighborhood may QPthack which is substantiai. The essentiai chara Substantiai be'substantialJy altered and adioining P^ and deck Is 16 feet detriment as a resuit of the variance; The Nei hbors have not contacted ciosertothe property iine thanrlil^®leXjheVariance, if granted, may not offer the staff to comment on this proposa. afford relief. The applicant has not ipjaet deviation from the regulations tha tj a *be fUn 34-foot variance, demonstrated hardship that would is potential to build Son me information the aPP>!cant Provld^^^^^ potential to build on onthe south portion of the lot within thesetbacksand urn w building t tee west portion within the setdan?^hSre'"“buMing to the east, f proposed tee south will require removal of three t ees g nCe this lot more closely rneets wffl require the removal of te^easttte^^tee^^&nce^^^^^^ a 25_)oot setback, as requiredkitee'E-T dtetriot could be lustified. ^ . aet Thp existing house has TcroSw "he bMouse also creates a difficulty Ih moving BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 11,2001 Page 4 The view toward Lake Estes would also be impacted if the house were moved to the south. Public Comment: None. Board Member Ball left the meeting at 9:23 a.m. Based on the narrowness of the lot and the fact that the location of the house further to the south would be more obtrusive to the neighborhood, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve a side yard property line setback of 16 feet as opposed to a 50 foot setback as required in the RE-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 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 property owner shall provide a setback certificate by a registered land surveyor for the side yard setback. 6. REPORTS It was suggested by Member Sager that a sign be placed on the subject properties as done in the County to identify the sites with variance requests. Chair Barker suggested making it more definitive as a Code revision. Director Joseph advised that staff would look into creating some signs. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:36 a.m. Chair