The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2002-11-05BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 5, 2002, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Ball, Members Lamy, Sager, Barker and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:None Chair Ball 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‘ COTheEmlnuferofthe October 1,2002 meetingwere accepted as presented 1 o x/icTA pinriF SUBDIVISION. NW CORNER OF DRY GULCH ROAIa. b. The minutes of the October 1, 2002 meeimg were — LOT 3 VISTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION, NW CORNER OF DRY GULCH ROAD AND WILDFIRE ROAD, Applicant Estes Investors LLC - Withdrawn by c PORTION OF LOT 7, SUMMERVILLA SUBDIVISION. 775 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, ■ Ap^icant Dale & Chris Kosewick - Applicant request to continue until April d WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 6, T4N, R72W OF THE 6TH P.M., 1390 TYROLERNE ROAD & 2930 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD, Applicants William E. Sweet, III, the Estes Valley Development Code; §10AB, §1h0.4-E. § °-5 A-3’ S10-5 A-&’ §11OToCwnhBoa0rd§a1pO^;^al ^fthl'SwfefBoZary5 Line Advent application, ’ which was submitted in conjunction with this variance request. It was moved and seconded <N-=-'BirrLrs,g^eantednSbynttht9Botdof accepted and it passed unammou y. „ .ldi permit has not been issued ^“randrwrclmdenVc0rd wUhin twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 2. ■lAKIICF HAGEN & h SECTION 4.3. TABLE/f'^0FT|^f^^tSTE Thu applicant Yfi-hQg Hpviate trom the Planner Shirk reviewed he staff report Jh Ppi R of twenty.six (26) feeUoPlanner Shirk reviewed the staff setback of twenty-six (26) feet to mandated fifty (50) foot front yard se ae property owners started working I__________1_____ lir,^ permit construction of an attached two-car gar 9 _ ^nes but found there are many on a boundary line adjustment to P ,P y Th s complicated the boundary gapsando^rlapsinth^ocationofthe prope^lines.^Tms wm^^ the pounda,y linegaps and overlaps inthe'oc^tl°n Sip f.mefrarne for approval of the boundary line line adjustment and extended the timefra ^ js requesting a variance adjustment and the °p oAhe boundaiy lineadjustment and the proposed garage aauui ■ p^1 of the boundary line in order to build the garage "O" before 2,0n!' n|rocPkPouteroppings, trees, slopes, adjustment. The has P ■ f the pr0p0Sed garage to where theAdjustment. The lot has an unusual shape <tenta«^^^^ and existing development that directs the ntinueP0 be used for residential use aPPl'.*;3.0! nf thernSrW3orhood would not change. Staff does notStaff does not consider this a substantial IhJ?aXoSiearThe garage could beconsider this a substantial varian“AaTaaerthe last two years. The garage could be sted Sere onThe tetTough Ms would likely require the removal of trees and additional excavation work. Board Member Lamy questioned why the appiicant is not waiting for the deeds to be BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 5,2002 Page 2 settled. Planner Shirk stated that it will take a few months to go through the roughly 50 deeds and the applicants would like to build the garage now Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. The applicant could wait until the boundary line adjustment was complete and build the garage next year; however they would like to build this season. He restated that there are over 50 deeds that need to be looked at to clarify property lines. There are 10 to 12 lots involved in determining where the lot lines reside for this particular property. Each deed needs to be looked at individually to determine who has priority. Mr. Sheldon stated there is a State statute called “Race Notice State” that states the first person to the court house has priority to the property. There are numerous overlaps in this area and senior rights need to be determined. Board Member Barker questioned what the chances are that the property line will go right through the addition if this variance is granted before the boundary line adjustment. Mr. Sheldon stated that there are only 3 possibilities for the property lines as shown on the plat with the worst case scenario placing the addition 26.7 feet from the property line. Janice Hagen, 1701 Windham Drive, was present. She stated that she and her daughter own both properties. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve the variance request to allow for a front yard setback of twenty-six (26) feet from the fifty (50) foot front yard setback to build a two car garage and the motion passed unanimously, with the following conditions. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustnient 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 ^ 1. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor.2. Compliance with the submitted site plan. The southern building addition shall not extend beyond 24 feet from the existing structure. 3. Foundation plans shall be engineered as recommended by the Larimer County Building Department. I r>T 7. CHERQKFF MEADOWS 1ST FILING. 1606 CHEROKEE DRIVl APPLICANT GREGG & SANDRA ROUNDS - VARIANCE REQUEST FROJ^ APPENDIX D.III.B.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY PEVELOPMENL^ BoardMem^'r Barker advised that the TOdeBoard Memoer barxer aavibeu men me ...»—--- - .ot.H fhnt hear items that are not in compliance with ‘hf^de Directors inai are iiui III .............................. . r iu„ nirontnrBoard Member Newsom stated they are in violation of the code. Director Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official stated that Jud9eBrown directed the Sritv to grant refef to the ^ Member Barker is concerned that this will cause people to request relief from the Board af^ tl^fact. He feels itenforcement clause in the code that keeps people from '^"9 libertiesfmntof ,udae would be appropriate to hear the Rounds appeal^giventhe^^^^ Jod9would be appropriate to heartne Kounos appeal yivcu mc^yBrown and have been found in violation of the code. Member Barker would like Judge Brown to be made aware of the Board of Adjustment process. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to allow two (2) driveway curb cuts at 1805 Cherokee Drive, rather than one (1) curb cut as allowed 'ntheEVDC Annonriiv R 111 B 3 c Public Works Department stated that fewer curb cuts reduce Sr-. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 5,2002 Page 3 possible. The only possible “special circumstance" is the fact the driveway has already been constructed. The site plan submitted with the building permit did not include the dual curb cut drive. Therefore, the applicant failed to build to the site plan presented to the Community Development Department for review. The single-family house could continue to be used with one curb cut rather than two curb cuts, as every other drive on the street. This request is substantial however it may not substantially change the essential character of the neighborhood. There are no unique circumstances associated with the lot that would necessitate two curb cuts, rather than one. Staff does not recommend the formulation of a general regulation to allow all single-family lots to have two curb cuts per lot. It is staffs opinion that granting of this variance would be in conflict with review standards mandated by the Estes Valley Development Code. Gregg Rounds, 1805 Cherokee Drive, was present. He stated the driveway was defined before the manufactured home was brought to the property. The curbcuts were already in place before the asphalt was laid down. He stated that the con.st^cJ'on workers used this loop driveway and defined the driveway. Mr. Rounds ad^ the code regarding more than one curb cut was not included in the bui.ldin9 oacket He stated that if the code requirement was in the building permit packe , put in a ioop driveway. He received o, Oc^anoy on January 10 2002; however he moved into the house in May of 2001. He stated mere on Sha'oii C?urt andTcLrokee Loop that were developed after h,s property. Ok to deviate from the site plan without asking the Budding Ottiaa there this was not an intended deviation to t e P official signed the Certificate of before the house. He feels that.^ffantSe He would have hacTno^proWem wRh rSng the second curb cut d ^e Building Official had found it in vioiation before the Certificate of Occupancy was signed. Chair Baii had to leave the meeting and therefore turned the chair over to Vice-Chair Sager at 9:25 a.m. Mr. Rounds stated that he was toid by the Pf in9 before laying the asphaltdo*"h s^ted Lt the Certificate of Occupancy hSeSed :rtL°rea^was pav^ put the driveway in if they would have known it was not permitted. Board Member Barker l^iea|dCSStaUhS^^^^^^ the driveway being defined. Wiil Birchfield^a e h 9Department does not with Certificate of Occupancies on P™,^® dwef^"9aJehd^n the BuiWing Department like to keep people from using ‘hei hoina H® safeW issaes. Member allows homeowners to move in as ^ . h the contractors was considered the Barker questioned whether the dnvewayuse y Bjrchfield advised that the Building actual driveway by the Bu'^ing Departm t^ gujldjng Department uses the site plan Sed in teSren|^"srand tLrefore assumes that is what wiii be buiit. Member Newsom questioned whether sJatedthatu'did11not occur to him at thMimethaalth^y^ereS2ecCurb cuts, it is not uncommon to drive around the house BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 5,2002 Page 4 when doing inspections. Mr. Birchfieid advised that the code states if a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and there is a violation of the code or the Municipal code then the Certificate of Occupancy is invalid. Member Barker stated that just because a Building Official misses something during the inspection does not mean the homeowner does not need to correct any violations found. Mr. Birchfieid stated that was correct. Board Member Barker would like the staff to look at the other properties mentioned by Mr. Rounds to see if those properties are in compliance with the code. Greg Sievers, Public Works Engineer, referred to an earlier e-mail from Bill Linnane stating that Larimer County, Fort Collins, Loveland and most other Front Range communities have adopted a similar curb cut policy that the Town has adopted, which is one curb cut per residential lot. He stated that this residence late last year or early this spring did not have physical curb cuts. The developer provided a four inch asphalt curb that can be negotiated easily by a small car. The new standards for developments require a 6 inch concrete curb that a small car would not go over easily. Member Barker questioned whether or not the Public Works Department has any plans to change the code requirement in the future. Mr. Sievers stated they do not have any plans to change the code and that this code requirement is standard in surrounding communities. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Newsom) to deny the variance to EVDC Appendix D.III.B.3.C to allow two (2) driveway curb cuts at 1805 Cherokee Drive and the motion passed unanimously, with the following conditions. 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 curb cut closest to Indian Trail shall be removed and the driveway shall be removed at least three feet from the front property line within thirty (30) days of this Board of Adjustment hearing. 2. A turn around area shall be provided to avoid backing onto Cherokee Drive. 4. REPORTS There being no further business, Vice-Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 9:46 a.m. Joe/Ball; Chair n Willia son. Recording Secretary