Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2002-04-02BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 2, 2002, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board:Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Ball, Members Barker, Lamy, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:None 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 March 5, 2002 meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 3. VENNER RANCH ESTATES 2ND FILING: 350 PROSPECT MOUNTAIN COURT. APPLICANT: EDWARD & BARBARA NELSON - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance from the 25-foot front yard setback as required for the “E-1" district in the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant received a height variance from the Board in December of 2000; however, due to a surveying error, the structure was located too close to the lot line. This error was not noticed until the applicant’s bank requested an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) to close on the house. The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and no significant issues or concerns were expressed. Member Sager questioned if the dirt roadway were moved in the future would there be an encroachment issue. Director Joseph advised there appears to be ample room for the roadway within the R.O.W. Member Barker asked what responsibiiity the surveyor bears for the error made during the survey. He questioned whether or not approval of this variance wouid send the wrong message to surveyors. Director Joseph advised that he feels it would not set a precedent. Public Comment: None. Based on Staff findings and the error in the survey, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow for a twenty-five (25) foot variance from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback and it passed unanimously. 3. SE CORNER OF SE 1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SECTION 34. TOWNSHIP 5N, RANGE 73W OF THE 6TH P.M.: 2283 EAGLE CLIFF RD.. APPLICANT: KAY & DAVID RUSK - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-5 AND SECTION 6.3.C.2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The appiicant 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 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 2,2002 Page 2 Structures Limited” of the Estes Vaiiey Development Code. The applicant proposes to expand the existing house, which is nonconforming as to the “A-1" Accommodations/Low Intensity zoning district side yard setback. Specifically, this is a request for a three (3) foot variance from the mandated fifteen (15) foot side yard setback, to allow the extension to be built twelve (12) feet from the side lot line. The applicant could shift the addition to the south and build within the setbacks. However, this would place the addition in a drainage. Shifting the addition to the house would require the removal of at least one tree that could be saved if a variance is granted. The expansion of the house would not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Adjoining property owners have not contacted the staff. The applicant purchased the property prior to the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code without knowledge of the requirements. Member Sager stated that the request for a three (3) foot variance would only cover the foundation and the eves of the new addition will therefore overhang into the setback. Director Joseph advised the code allows for a limited overhang. Kay Rusk expressed the need for a three (3) foot variance, not the seven (7) foot variance stated in the staff report. Public Comment: None. Based on Staff findings, the natural screening of the rock formation, and the drainage to the south, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve the variance request to allow for a three (3) foot variance from the mandated fifteen (15) foot side yard setback for the proposed extension to be built twelve (12) feet from the side lot line with the following conditions and it passed unanimously. 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. 4. PORTION OF LOT 20. BONNIE BRAE SUBDIVISION; 820 S. ST. VRAIN, ’ APPLICANT: RONALD & STEPHANIE PITTS - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RFCTION 6.8.B.1 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request by the appiicant for a variance to Section 6.8.B “Nonconforming Lots in Nonresidentiai Zoning Districts" to aliow a commercial accommodations use on a iot that does not meet the minimum lot size standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. In all nonresidentiai zoning districts, a lot that is nonconforming as to area or dimension as of the effective date of this Code may be occupied by any use permitted by right in the zoning district, provided that a by-right accomn]°^®t'°JJ® use shall not be developed on a lot with an area less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet in the A zoning district. This lot is 31,770 square feet. This request is in conjunction with a staff level review development plan for four dwelling units, and approval of this variance should be contingent upon approval of the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 2,2002 Page 3 development plan. The applicant purchased the property with the understanding the lot was zoned for accommodation use. Member Barker expressed a concern as to how staff came to approve this proposal. Director Joseph advised there is no clear hardship case and that perhaps there should have been a rezoning to the A-1 district; however the rezoning would not provide them with the preferred density. He agreed the burden is on the applicant. It is the staffs opinion with Highway 7 frontage and the commercial neighbors that this may be an appropriate use of the lot. Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicants. He discussed the wording of the code. He stated the lot is zoned for accommodations. The lot is also located adjacent to Highway 7 and existing commercial accommodation property; therefore an appropriate use of the lot. He also feels it would be a benefit to the community. He would like to see the landscaping condition removed because it should be a development issue not a condition of a variance request. Member Newsom asked if the applicants have an issue with the trees. Mr. Van Horn stated 6 spruce trees along the southern property line already adequately screen the boundary and feels additional landscaping would be redundant. Director Joseph advised the board they could move the landscaping to the east to provide screening to the condominiums along Community Drive. He also stated staff should be given the ability to increase the number of plants beyond the code requirements to assure proper screening along the southern and eastern property lines. Member Barker expressed his concern that it is not within the Powers and Duties of the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance based on economics He stated this request shouid be done in a different forum. He beiieves this will set a precedent for the future variances if approved. He will not support this proposal. Ron Pitts, applicant, has owned the property for 10 or 15 years He bought as an investment He has always rented out the property on a m°"bas's ®nd square footage of his lot has always been the same. He stated the Town has been trying to change the use of his property for years. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to allow for the requested variance to Section 6.8.B “Nonconforming Lots in Nonresidenhai^ning Districts” to allow a commercial accommodations development and t passedwiththe following conditions. Those voting “yes”: Newsom Balk Sanpr Lamv Those voting “no": Barker. 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. i. Variance shall be contingent upon approval and compliance with Pitts Development Plan for this location. 9 Number of units shall not exceed four. 3 The applicant shall apply for a business license with the To"" "l*hin ■ one year of Board action. Should the business license lapse for a period of twelve consecutive months, the variance shall become null and void. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 2, 2002 Page 4 4. A district boundary landscape buffer shall be installed along the southern and eastern property lines and could exceed the code at staffs discretion. The building to the south will not encroach on the southern setback. 5. REPORTS Bill Van Horn stated that the Board of Adjustment exists to give relief and can be the only or last resort for many property owners. The citizens rely on the Town to zone property appropriately. Member Barker agrees and feels that perhaps the Powers and Duties of the Board of Adjustment need to be changed. Member Sager would like the staff to make a concerted effort in getting the properties requesting a variance signed appropriately. It would be advantageous for the board members trying to locate the properties and for the neighbors and adjacent property owners. Director Joseph advised that the Community Development Department has not made signs and is still discussing what kind of sign would be best. He stated the Department has been slow In responding to the Board’s request for signs, however the sites will be posted for the May meeting. There being no further business, Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m. Joe Ball/Chair • r Ja\^qufelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary