Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2002-03-05BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 5, 2002, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Ball, Members Barker, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:Judy Lamy Chair Ball 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 January 8, 2002, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 6. TENBROOK RESUBDIViSON. LESS THE SOUTH 67.5 FEET: 350 VIRGINIA DRIVE. APPLICANT: WILLIAM BARLOW-VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 6.3.C.2 AND SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts” and Section 6.3.C.2. “Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited” of the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant ProPpses to expand the existing house, which is nonconforming as to the “RM” Multi-Family Residential zoning district front and side yard setbacks. Specifically, this is a request for a twenty (20) foot variance from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback, to allow the extension to be built five (5) feet from the front lot line. The proposed expansion involves the expansion of the kitchen and addition of a living room, carport and deck. Converting the existing two-story house from an approximately five hundred seventy three (573) square foot home to a two-story, approximately eight hundred six (806) square foot home with a new deck of approximately eighty (80) square foot. The lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum lot size for the “RM” Multi-Family Residential zoning district is 40,000 square feet. The size of this lot is 0.0561 acres (2,445 square feet). The existing one-story house was built in 1924 and is nonconforming as to the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback and the ten (10) foot side yard setback. The house is five (5) feet from the front (northern) property line and one (1) foot from the side (west) property line. The proposed front yard setback variance would allow the petitioner to build very close to the right-of-way, five (5) feet away. However, the existing right-of-way, at approximately one hundred forty (140) feet wide with an approximately forty-five (45) foot wide paved road, is not narrow. This existing house is already five (5) feet from this right-of-way. The applicant could reduce the variance request by three (3) feet, requesting a seventeen (17) foot variance to the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback, allowing the applicant to build eight (8) feet from the property line. This could be achieved by shifting the proposed addition three (3) feet south, i.e. ten (10 feet) from the south property line. However, according to the applicant shifting the addition three feet would create problems with the interior layout of the house. No issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 5,2002 Page 2 Board member Sager requested clarification on which side of the house is being considered the front and rear setback lines. It appears that the only access is along 352 Virginia Drive. He is concerned whether or not the access would be vacated. Planner Chilcott discussed the address and access with building official John Allman. The access has been vacated. Staff discussed with the Board what should be considered the front and rear side yard. Board member Sager stated the application needs to recognize the need for a front, rear and side property line variance. The application does not request a west side setback; however the house is already within the setback by 9 feet. Applicant, William Barlow, 350 Virginia Drive, owner of subject property, was present to answer questions. Recognizes that the west side yard is within the required setback. The property owner purchased the home in its current state, which was built prior to the current Code. Mr. Barlow stated shifting of the addition would create problems with the layout of the house. Public Comment: None. Based on Staff findings, the smallness of the lot, and recognizing that the west side of the house is already within the setback it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve the variance request to allow for a twenty (20) foot variance from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback and to allow the extension to be built five (5) feet from the front lot line, with the following conditions and it 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. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. LOT 16, GRAND ESTATES ADDITION: 1260 BIG THOMPSON AVE.. APPLICANT: WALLACE & LAURINE BURKE TRUST-VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.4. TABLE 4-5 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-5 “Floor Area Ratio” for the “A” District of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the applicant wishes to deviate from the maximum FAR of .25 to a FAR of .26 to allow for the enclosure of an existing stairwell located along the western side of the main building. This would result In a net increase in floor area ratio of the existing .2627 to .2634, and would have a minimal effect on the existing development or surrounding neighborhood. Only the stairwell would be enclosed; no other building is proposed at this time. The lot is currently non- conforming as to FAR, and was built prior to adoption of a FAR requirement. It is Staffs opinion these two factors provide special circumstances. The net increase would be minimal. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. Three options exist that would not require a variance: applicant could reconfigure the interior office space to allow for the stairwell, convert 4,540 square feet of existing accommodation unit up to an additional (3) employee housing units, or amend the plats of Lot 15 and 16, Grand Estates Drive to BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 5,2002 Page 3 increase Lot 16 size to allow for a conforming FAR. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Board member Sager asked for clarification as to why there Is more area included then just the stairway in question. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to representing the applicants. He stated this Is a small variance request, and It would seem to be the least deviation at this time. This Is a foot traffic pattern issue for the staff of the hotel. The enclosed area will be 25 foot by 4 foot for a total of 100 feet. The Impervious coverage would not change. Staff answered questions regarding the FAR code. Public Comment: None. Based on Staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow for a maximum FAR of .2634 to allow for the enclosure of an existing stairwell located along the western side of the main building with the following conditions and it 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. Compliance with the submitted site plan. 4- IRACT 3, WELLS SUBDIVISION: 3505 ST. FRANCIS WAY. APPLICANT: SARAH RHODES - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 5.2.D.4 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE “ Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance to Section 5.2.D.4 “Maximum Building or Structure Size” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a 4,800 square foot accessory structure. Specifically, the applicant wishes to construct a workshop for the restoration of antique fire trucks and an 0-scale model railroad. Sarah Rhodes currently owns the lot, with Doug and Cheryl Klink proposing to purchase the lot and construct the accessory structure. The Klink’s propose to remove the existing barn structure and corral fence, and build a new two-story workshop. The maximum allowed building or structure size with in the RE-1 zone is 1,000 square feet The requested variance is substantial with an increase of 380 percent. There are no special circumstances or conditions associated with this lot. Other lots located In this subdivision are of similar size. There can be beneficial use of the property without the variance. The essential character of the neighborhood may change as a result of the variance. Additional septic systems may be required, and will be limited in the allowable discharge. The applicant is fully aware of the maximum allowable accessory structure. The proposed structure could be built within a commercially or industrially zoned district. Section 5.2 “Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures”, sub-section A.4.a states, “The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with the principle use . It is Staffs opinion the proposed antique fire truck restoration workshop is not clearly incidental or customarily found In connection with single family residential uses. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. The requested variance does not represent the least BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 5,2002 Page 4 deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Planner Shirk read the Staff finding into record. Board member Barker asked If this structure was attached to the existing home would there be a need for a variance. Planner Shirk advised there would not be a need for a variance; however they would be limited to a 1000 square foot garage. Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant and the potential buyers. Mr. Van Horn stated the FAR code is too general and the code was adopted to limit the crowding of buildings in a neighborhood. He stated that if the structure to be built were a barn and not an accessory building there would be no variance required. Committee should recognize that Sarah Rhodes owned this property before the code was adopted. She was unaware of the new code or the impact it would have on her property. This limitation affects the value of the property, which Is a hardship to the property owner. He stated this is not a substantial variance. The Staff finding states this is a 480 percent Increase of the allowable size, which is incorrect and should be stated as a 380 percent increase. The County comments have been addressed. This would not be a good use of the limited commercial land of Estes Park. Mr. Van Horn states that this is basically an issue of terminology, whether you call It a barn or a workshop. The overall size of the lot Is what should be considered. The neighboring lots have a higher percentage of total coverage than the Rhodes property Is allowed. Board memlDer Sager questioned whether the applicant would agree to Attorney breg White’s deed restriction In the event this variance Is approved. Mr. Van Horn supports the deed restriction, along with the other Staff conditions. Board member Barker asked why the new structure Is not simply attached to the h0me' Yan Horn stated they would take down the existing barn and build the new workshop on the same disturbed site. Public Comment: Klink'^ LnlerSOn: 3h 9? St,FranCiS Way' spoke in favor of the workshop. The w orked close|y Wlth the neighbors and have assured thern there ben% to Z 'nCre^fe in Z18! 0r trafflc- The nei9hbors feel this would be a benefit to the overall nerghborhood. The Klink’s have agreed to a conservation easement for the wetlands, which Is currently used as a horse pasture. Chair Ball read the neighbor’s letter into record. m^hn0n’ 34t5 Francis Way' sP°ke in favor- Supports the change in use from horse property to a workshop. t?^,YuC0,funrlan’ nei9hborw|thin site distance of the Rhodes property, questioned 94nnher thlS r°f K Set a precedent- He stated this is a great alternative to a 2400 square foot barn. He would like to see a somewhat smaller foot print. rF^aan®r .Sl^irk statad al1 variance requests are evaluated individually, and reiterated it was Staff’s opinion the submitted conditions are of so general a nature that the variance should not be granted. Board member Sager asked that the applicants representative to clarify the conservation easement. Mr. Van Horn stated that the conservation easement Is BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 5,2002 Page 5 under discussion. Doug Klink stated that the conservation easement has been discussed with the Andersons. The fine print of the agreement has not been finalized; however he feels this easement will be adopted. Board member Barker asked the potential buyers if the deed restriction included a clause restricting the use of horses on the property would it be a concern. Mr. Klink stated that such a restriction would be agreeable. Board member Sager inquired of the staff regarding the guidelines for landscaping. Planner Shirk stated the development code does not require landscaping; however specific landscaping conditions can be required. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to approve the variance request to allow for the Accessory Building with the exception that the deed restriction state the property wouid not be used for horses in the future. Amendment to the motion was requested. The Board suggested iandscaping aiong side the building and a conservation easement for the wetlands be added as a recommendation. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to allow for the Accessory Building with the foiiowing conditions and it passed unanimousiy with one absent. AM variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shail become nuil and void if a Buiiding Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within tweive (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Compliance with a revised site plan, which should accurately reflect property lines 2. Recording of a Land Use Affidavit stating the accessory structure is for personal use only. This Land use Affidavit shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Attorney. 3. The building shall be constructed with materials chosen to match the existing character of the neighborhood. 4. In addition, the Board suggested and recommended landscaping the proposed structure and a conservation easement placed over the wetlands on the property. 5. REPORTS Board member Sager stated that he had a recent discussion with Planner Shirk regarding the signing of subject properties. He would like to see signs placed on the subject properties as done in the County to identify the sites with variance requests. Matthew Heiser of Van Horn Engineering stated there would be no problem with placing the signs. Board member Newsom supports having the signs and feels it would be helpful for the adjacent property owners as well. There being no further business. Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. Joe By^1. Chair ' ^ -wa Y—c-Xa ----IL.—N ,1 V—g. icjJelyrrWilliamson, Recording SeSecretary