Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-01-07BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 7, 2003, 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 Sager, Barker and Lamy Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:Member Newsom and Planner Chilcott 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 a. The minutes of the December 3, 2002 meeting were accepted as presented. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) that Jeff Barker be nominated for Chair and it passed unanimously with one absent and Barker abstaining. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Ball) that Judy Lamy be nominated for Vice-Chair and it passed unanimously with one absent and Lamy abstaining. It was moved and seconded (Lamy/Sager) that the Community Development Secretary be appointed as Recording Secretary and it passed unanimously with one absent. The newly elected Chair took over the meeting at 8:06 a.m. 3. LOT 12. ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES. 330 FALL RIVER LANE. APPLICANT: KATHERINE GRACE - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2. SECTION 7.6.E.1 AND APPENDIX D.III.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk gave a brief review of the staff report and the conditions of approval. Kathy Grace, applicant, was present and stated that she would like to keep the off- street parking in front of the house and utilize the current driveway to access the new garage; therefore eliminating the need for a second curb cut. Planner Shirk stated that the applicant’s request would be acceptable as long as the width of the current driveway remains unchanged. Commissioner Sager stated that he was concerned that the grade of the driveway may be too steep. Director Joseph advised that the downhill side of the garage would be on 4 feet of fill making the finish floor grade of the garage practical for the driveway. Public Comment: Keith Keenan, 2501 Big Thompson, commented that the river setbacks have already been reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet and stated he was not in favor of this proposal. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to deny a second curb cut and the motion passed with one absent. Those voting “yes” Barker, Sager and Baii. Those voting “no” Lamy. It was moved and seconded (Ball/Sager) based on the rock outcropping site conditions to approve the variance request of seven feet six inches (7’6”) from the required fifteen foot (15) front yard setback to buiid a garage seven feet six inches (7’6”) from the property iine and a river setback variance of eight feet (8) from the required thirty foot (30) river setback to buiid a garage twenty-two feet (22) from the rivers edge and the motion passed unanimousiy, one absent, with BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 7,2003 Page 2 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. Silt and construction barrier fencing shall be installed prior to any excavation work, and shall be kept in working condition until all construction is completed. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan, which shall be revised to show only the existing driveway. 4. UNPLATTED PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF KIOWA DRIVE AND MARY’S LAKE ROAD. APPLICANT: MARY’S LAKE LODGE - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.66.060M3) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Applicant requests a continuance to the February 4, 2003 meeting. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to continue this request to the February 4,2003 meeting and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent. 5. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROPERTY OFF HiGHWAY 34 AND ADJACENT OT LOT 1. LAKE ESTES 2uo ADDITION (LAKE ESTES MARINA). 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE. APPLICANT: STANGER FAMILY. LLC-VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.66.060M3) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chair Barker requests this item be continued because the sign is currently illegal. There is an additional AAA sign attached to the side of the off premise sign that was not approved with the previous variance. Board Member Sager stated that he agreed with Chair Barker’s comments and sited Section 17.66.340(3) of the Municipal Code. He stated that the Board of Adjustment has no right or reason to hear this item until the violation is rectified. Director Joseph stated that if the AAA sign is removed the variance will be heard at next month’s meeting. Public Comment: None. Based on the current off premise sign being In violation of the previously approve variance, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to continue this request to the February 4,2003 meeting to give the applicant time to remove the AAA sign and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 6. LOT 44. BLOCK 1. FALL RIVER ESTATES. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FALL RIVER COURT AND FALL RIVER ROAD INTERSECTION. APPLICANT: FALL RIVER ESTATES. INC. - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 7.6.E.2.bj RFCTION 7.6.E.1.am AND SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. l # Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build a single-family residence on a legally platted lot in Fall River Estates. The lot has an unusual shape, contains extensive wetlands that cover roughly 90 percent of the site, is split in two by the Fall River and is heavily vegetated. The river and wetland setbacks, with the front yard setback, combine to create regulatory constraints that would render this lot unbuildable without the requested variances. This proposal includes building within existing wetlands. The removed wetlands will be less than .10 acres, and will be subject to all applicable Corps of Engineering requirements for removal of wetlands. The proposed location would have the least amount of impact on the Fall River npanan BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 7,2003 Page 3 corridor and the surrounding single-family neighborhood. The essential character of the neighborhood would not substantially change. Board Member Sager stated that the Board of Adjustment and the Community Development Department did not create this hardship. Planner Shirk affirmed this statement and stated that this lot was platted in the County when there were no wetland regulations. Paul Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the building footprint, patio and driveway are almost the same footprint as the area of disturbance; therefore the building itself will not be 2,800 square foot. He advised that this project would use the Nationwide Permit 39 allowed by the Corp of Engineers when a project does not disturb more than .10 of an acre of wetlands. He stated the front yard setback was requested in order to move the house out of the wetlands as much as possible. He suggested that the following conditions be added: (1) As built revised site plan at the point the foundation is constructed. (2) Pre-construction meeting prior to any construction on the site, and (3) Prior to construction the area to be disturbed should be totally fenced including the area in the outlet. Board Member Sager complimented Estes Park Surveyor for producing an exceptional site plan. He stated the site plan was easy to read and understand. He stated that the requested variances concerned him. He feels that if the building could be smaller that perhaps the setback request to the north would not be necessary. He questioned whether or not the applicant would consider reducing the size of the building. Mr. Kochevar stated that the building footprint is not that large and that the building will probably be a 2 story building. Public Comment: Patty Tailor Czarnowski, 2180 Blue Spruce Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She stated that the wetiands should not be compromised for convenience or profit. She feels the variance would not be necessary if the building was smaller and therefore would not encroach upon the wetland? or the outlet. Keith Keenan. 2501 Big Thompson, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He stated that this project should not be passed in its present form. Tom Ewing, 1082 Fall River Court, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He does not feel there should be a building on this property. He feels it should remain an undisturbed wetland. Chair Barker questioned if there was a building of any size that would be acceptable. Mr. Ewing stated that a smaller building would do less damage, however he would rather see nothing built on the lot. Jay Harroff, 1089 Fall River Court, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He does not understand the access easement across the outlet. He teeis the property could have access off of Fall River Court. Alice Gray, president of Estes Valley Improvement Association. 1252 Community Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. The Association is opposed to developing in the wetlands. They would like to see this land be a conservation easement. Richard Doutt, 2265 Deer Mountain Drive, spoke in opposition of the ProP°sed variance request. He stated that the house is too large. He is concerned that the driveway will split the outlet in half. Paul Kochevar stated there is a recorded easement across the outlet. The applicant BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 7,2003 Page 4 has been advised that he could use any portion of the outlet up to a 60 foot width. Glen Smith, 1049 Fall River Court, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance. He stated that the house should be smaller. Bryan Michener, Vice President of the Estes Valley Improvement Association and Board Member of Wildlife 2000, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance. He feels the lot should not be built on. He stated that the wetlands need to be protected. He proposed that the land trust purchase the land from the owner. Director Joseph stated that this was a subdivision that was platted in the 1970’s in the County: therefore this is a legal lot and the landowner has the right to an economic use of the lot. If that reasonable economic use is not provided there is a risk that the landowner could pursue legal recourse against the Town for a regulatory taking. This lot was approved by the County Commissioners before there were established wetland regulations. He stated that this lot would not be platted as a buildable lot with today’s standards. He advised that at one time the developer who owned both the outlet and Lot 44 tried to swap the land and build on the outlet, which is not in the wetlands, with Planning staffs support. The homeowners at the time were in opposition to the swapping of the lots. He stated there is no building that could be built on this property without a variance. This entire lot is taken up by the property line setbacks and the wetland setbacks, and therefore renders the lot unbuildable without a variance. Richard Doutt, 2265 Deer Mountain Drive, stated that the outlet gives the homeowners in Fall River Estates access to the river. The earlier request to swap the land was to build an office building on the outlet which the neighbors opposed. Board Member Sager stated that the Board has not been provided architectural drawings of the structure, driveway or patio; therefore the Board would be approving several unknown details. He feels that the entire patio would be encroaching on the river setback. Based on the lack of architectural drawings, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to continue this request at such a time as the drawing could be provided to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Kochevar stated that the applicant did not want to invest money into a set of drawing if he was not going to build on the lot. The applicant may chose to sell the lot and a set of specific plans might not be desirable to a future owner. Board Member Sager withdrew his motion in light of Mr. Kochevafs statements. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to deny the requested variance to the front yard setback, to deny the request variance to the river setback and to approve the wetland setback variance to allow for construction within the delineated wetland area by repositioning a similar site disturbance footprint within the wetlands that complies with ali other setbacks and the motion failed. Those voting “yes” Sager and Ball. Those voting “no” Barker and Lamy. Based on the unique nature of the lot and that this is a site disturbance footprint not a building footprint, it was moved and seconded (Barker/Ball) to approve the variance request of thirteen feet (13) to eleven feet (11) from the twenty-five foot (25) front yard setback to build a house twelve feet (12) to fourteen feet (14) from the front yard setback, a river setback variance of twenty-two feet (22) from the fifty foot (50) river setback required to build a house twenty-eight feet (28) from the rivers edge and a wetland setback variance to allow for construction within BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 7,2003 Page 5 the delineated wetland area and the motion faiied. Those voting “yes” Barker and Ball. Those voting “no” Sager and Lamy. 7. REPORTS Board Member Sager questioned if larger variance signs will be provided in the future. Director Joseph stated that they will work on providing larger signs. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 10:21 a.m. Jeff Barker; Chair J^queftyn Williamson, Recording cx, r\ \ Secretary