Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2002-05-07BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 7, 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, Lamy, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott 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 April 2, 2002 meeting were accepted as presented. 2. SE CORNER OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 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 requested variance. On Aprii 2,2002, the Board of Adjustment granted a three (3) foot variance to the fifteen (15) foot setback aiong the north property line at 2283 Eagle Cliff Road, as requested by the owners, Dave and Kay Rusk. The request was based on a measurement, made by the owner, from a line that began at the northwest corner marker to a pin-in-concrete marker located approximately midway down the north property line. This pin-in­ concrete marker denotes the corner of a neighbor’s property and was thought to be on the owner’s property line. A survey, completed on April 25, 2002, determined that the pin-in-concrete marker is not on the actual property line. The actual property line is south of the line previously made by the owners. Therefore, based on the completed survey, the owners are asking for an additional seventeen (17) inches to the granted three (3) foot variance. The total variance requested is four (4) feet five (5) inches. Applicant, Dave Rusk, 2283 Eagie Cliff Road, owner of subject property, was present to answer questions. He stated there is an area of “no mans land” between their property and his neighbor. Initially, they believed the pin was the corner pin for their lot. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve the variance request to allow for a four (4) foot five (5) inch variance from the mandated fifteen (15) foot side yard setback for the proposed extension to be built ten (10) feet seven (7) inches 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. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 7,2002 Page 2 3. LOT 36. VENNER RANCH ESTATES: 580 UPPER VENNER ROAD. APPLICANT: ARTHUR & KATHLEEN FLOYD - 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 Accessory Building or Structure Size” of the Estes Valiey Development Code. Specifically, the applicant wishes to construct a detached 1,600 square foot garage and storage building. The applicant proposes to build in an area that has already been excavated. The site is steeply sloped and heavily forested, thus providing visual seclusion. The burden of demonstrating adequate hardship rests on the applicant. The applicant could build a smaller structure or build two separate structures, which would increase overall site disturbance. The Floyds have owned the property since 1998, prior to adoption of the current Estes Valley Development Code. Member Lamy questioned the height of the roof and the ratio of cars versus storage. Applicant, Arthur Floyd, 580 Upper Venner, owner of subject property, was present to answer questions. He stated the pitch of the roof would be 2 Vt. on 12 and the property is on a 45 degree pitch. Therefore, the building will be built into the side of the hill. He stated he would store 6 cars in the building. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve the variance request to allow for the Accessory Building and it passed unanimously with the following conditions. Aii variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shali become nuii and void if a Buiiding Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Applicant shall contact Larimer County Wildfire Safety Coordinator Tony Simons to arrange for wildfire mitigation. 2. Foundation shall be engineered. 3. The Applicant shall demonstrate that the slope's ground surface and subsurface are not unstable, that the proposed development will not cause instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that the development of the slope will not Increase the degree of hazard both on-site and on adjacent properties. 4. Building finish shall be non-reflective and muted earth-tone colors. 5. Roof shall be non-reflective green surface. 6. Prior to application for building permit, the Floyds shall contact Chuck Harris (577-2100) to obtain either a temporary or final certificate of occupancy. 4. LOT 9. THOMPSON'S PINEWOOD ACRES: 640 PINEWOOD LANE. APPLICANT: MONTE & CAROLE HOUSE - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 Front Setback for the “E-1” District of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback to allow construction of an attached two-car garage with a setback of thirteen (13) feet. It is staff’s opinion there are no special circumstances or conditions associated with the lot. The lot exceeds the minimum lot size and width standards set forth for the “E-1” Estate district (minimum lot size is 1 acre, lot in question is 1.2 acres; minimum lot width is 100 feet, lot in question is approximately 330 feet wide). The applicant has owned the BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 7,2002 Page 3 house since June 1999, prior to adoption of the Estes Valiey Deveiopment Code. At the time the applicant purchased the house, the required setback was twenty- five (25) feet; therefore, the required setback has been in place since before the applicant purchased the home. The character of the neighborhood would be somewhat affected. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The applicant could build a twelve (12) foot addition to the existing garage and meet the setback requirements. This would provide for a two-car garage. Applicant, Monte House, 640 Pinewood Lane, owner of subject property, was present to answer questions. He stated they would like to maintain the architectural integrity of the house and the neighborhood. He has worked with 3 different architects to find the best way to add the garage and maintain the architecture of the house. He stated the property has a population of 100 year old ponderosa pines that would have to be cut in order to place the garage in a different location. Also, if they placed the garage in a different location it would require additional driveway and paving. He would request the staff drop the requirement for an additional survey. He feels the lot is well marked with corner pins. He stated this addition of the garage would bring the house up to date. Member Sager questioned whether they could add on to the existing garage to make it a two-car garage. Mr. House stated this would require tearing down the original garage and removing a structural wall to build a larger garage. Member Sager stated he feels the request is excessive. He believes there is another way to build this garage without asking for a substantial variance. Member Lamy asked if the goal was to have a three-car garage. Mr. House stated he would like a three-car garage in order to maintain the value of the property. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to deny the requested variance due to the fact a two-car garage could be constructed meeting the requirements of the code. Those voting “yes”: Lamy, Sager, Barker, and Newsom. Those voting “no”: Ball. 5. LOT 6. BLOCK 6. AMENDED WINDCLIFF SUBDIVISION. FIFTH FILING: 1451 JUNGFRAU TRAIL. APPLICANT: JACK & JACQUELYN REED-VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance to Section 4, Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts” of the Estes Valley Development Code. The lot is undeveloped and the petitioner is requesting setback variances to build a single-family house with a footprint of approximately 92 feet by 32 feet and a height of approximately 32 feet. The lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum lot size for the “E-1” Estate zoning district is one (1) acre. The size of this lot is 0.295 acres (12,850 square feet). The proposed house may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Adjoining property owners have not contacted staff to comment on this proposal and staff is not aware of their opinions about the variance request. The applicant purchased the property prior to the February 1,2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code and without knowledge of the requirements. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 7,2002 Page 4 Jamie Kenny, Westover Construction, was present representing the applicants. The Architectural Control Committee did agree to approve the request as presented due to a large tree that would be affected if the house was moved to the south. Member Sager stated that some of the largest homes In Estes Park are being built in Windcliff and there is undoubtedly a good reason for the large homes. He also stated that many of the lots have undesirable shapes and require special design in order to build upon them. The property line off of Eagle Cliff drive is 20 to 30 feet from the gravel road and the only access would be from Jungfrau. He feels this is another compelling reason for the variance. Member Newsom agreed with Member Sager’s comments. Director Joseph advised the zoning for Windcliff is an exception to the rule. Windcliff property owners wanted to retain the “E” estate zoning Instead of the more appropriate zoning of “R” residential, which would have decreased the setback requirements. Therefore, he stated we will see more variance requests for this area. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Barker) to approve the variance request to allow for a 10.5 foot variance from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot side yard variance for the northern side lot line to buiid a single-famiiy house 14.5 feet from the side iot line; a 10.52 foot variance from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback on Jungfrau Traii to the east, to build a single family house 14.48 feet from the front lot line, and an 11 foot variance from the mandated twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback on Eagle Cliff Drive to the west, to build a single-family house 14 feet from the front lot line and it passed unanimousiy with the following conditions. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shaii 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. 6. REPORTS Member Sager complimented staff for their effort to sign the subject properties. He stated that any sign is better than none, whether or not that the sign shouid be larger is up for discussion. There being no further business. Chair Bail adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m. 3y^l,/ChairJoe Bi ic^quelyn ,A'M”L °Williamson, Recording Secretary