Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-03-04RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 4, 2003, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Barker, Members Ball, Lamy, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent:None Chair Barker 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. 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.b, SECTION 7.6.E.1.a(2^ AND SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Paul Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that he has concerns with staff condition number 8 regarding the parking along the access easement. He stated this property would have a long driveway and there would not be room to widen the driveway to accommodate more vehicles. He feels there is a need to have parking spaces along the driveway to allow vehicles to turn around on site and drive out facing forward. This would eliminate the need for vehicles to back onto a busy road. He stated the Land Trust has been working with the property owners; however it does not appear an agreement will take place anytime soon. Board member Sager questioned the need for additional parking spaces when the requirement for a single family dwelling is 2 parking spaces. Mr. Kochevar stated that Fall River Court is a busy street; therefore, guest parking along the road will not be an option. Town Attorney White stated the parking spaces along the access easement should be addressed by the Land Trust and the applicant to determine if the conservation easement allows parking. Director Joseph stated he supports Mr. Kochevar’s request to remove the staff condition regarding the parking spaces and by removing the condition the Board of Adjustment has not approved or disapproved the parking arrangement. Board member Sager stated he is convinced that a building could be situated on the lot in a way that meets the building and river setback requirements, except for the attached garage. He advised the current drawing shows the building at 30 feet wide. In order to meet the building and river setbacks the building would have to be 29 feet wide. The exterior deck shown within the river setback would need to be at ground level. Mr. Kochevar stated that moving the building closer to the side yard setback would change the building slightly. As long as the building is not moved farther south he would be in agreement with the changes proposed by member Sager. He stated the building would be rotated clockwise and holding a front wall line along the north. The encroachment into the river setback is eliminated and there would be no building encroachment on the west side. The only building setback encroachment would be along the northern building setback for the garage, wetland encroachment also remains. Public Comment: None. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 March 4, 2003 It was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to approve the variance request of twelve feet (12) from the twenty-five foot (25) front yard setback to build a house thirteen feet (13) from the north property iine and a wetland setback variance to allow for construction within the delineated wetland area and the motion passed with the foiiowing conditions (See page 6 for drawings). Those voting “yes” Sager, Barker, Newsom, and Ball. Those voting “no” Lamy. 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 pre-application meeting with the builder and Community Development is required prior to application for building permit. 2. Prior to any construction activity, the proposed limits of disturbance shall be fenced with construction fencing in the field. 3. The parking area should be designed, to the maximum extent feasible, to drain to the west. 4. Building permit submittal shall include a grading plan. 5. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of as-built plans prepared by a registered land surveyor. 6. Compliance with the submitted site plan, which should be revised to include top of foundation and parking area elevations. 7. The applicant shall comply with Section 7.2 “Grading and Site Disturbance”, including placement of limits of disturbance and restoration of disturbed areas. 8. Compliance with the Light and Power memo from Todd Steichen dated January 20, 2003. 2- A PORTION OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 31. T5N. R72W OF THE 6TH P.M.. 1460 FLOWER LANE, APPLICANT: WALTER D. BOETTGER TRUST - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a front yard setback variance from the required fifty foot (50) setback to allow for the enclosure of a small corner area of an existing cabin. The proposal would not increase the overall perimeter of the cabin footprint, but would add a bathroom/laundry room of approximately 87 square feet. There are special circumstances associated with the lot. A sewer easement located south of the cabin hinders development potential in that area. The entire cabin is within the required building setback; therefore any additions would require a setback variance. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. Staff does not consider the setback request substantial. Walter Boettger, 1460 Flower Lane, stated that during last summer’s Big Elk fire they were asked to remove a propane tank and wood from the location in which they would like to build the addition. Public Comment: None. Based on the entire cabin is currently within the setback it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball) to approve the variance request of twelve feet (12) from the fifty foot (50) front yard setback to build a house thirty-eight feet (38) from the property iine as per the site plan 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. Compliance with the submitted site plan. 2. New construction shall be consistent in style, materials, and color of existing cabin. This should be identified with the building permit submittal. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 4, 2003 3. LOT 1. ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES. 800 OLD RANGER ROAD. APPLICANT: JUDY HUGHES - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM APPENDIX D.III.B.3.C OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The petitioner is appealing the Town Engineer’s decision not to waive the one driveway curb cut requirement to allow two curb cuts to remain at 800 Old Ranger Drive. Multiple curb cuts were allowed on residential lots under the prior zoning code. The Estes Valley Development Code, effective February 1, 2000, limits residential lots to one curb cut. The applicant’s building permit #7060 was issued on January 22, 2002 for a single-family home. The applicant showed a one curb cut driveway on the building permit, but has continued to use the loop driveway established by construction workers during construction of her house. Staff does not find any special circumstances or conditions related to this property that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated, nor that practical difficulty would result from strict compliance with this Code standard. This is a flat, rectangular, 0.20 acre lot with potential for a turnaround area on the western portion of the lot. If staff’s decision is not upheld and a two curb cut driveway is allowed on this lot, this will decrease road safety, impact the Public Works Department’s ability to provide public services, and impair the intent and purpose of the Code standard. Greg Sievers, Construction/Public Facilities Manager, stated that Public Works staff does not feel this site has a hardship. The topography is flat and the driveway can be manipulated to work with the site. Judy Hughes, 810 Old Ranger Drive, stated that her lot is narrow and to remove the only natural area on the lot to create a turnaround would go against the code provisions to waive the one curb cut standard and decrease her property value. Ms. Hughes believes her circular drive meets the waiver standards of less visual and environmental impact and open space preservation. She feels closing the eastern entrance would negatively impact the environment and could lead to potential oil run off from cars into the river. She stated the westerly access point is not feasible due the proximity of the well head to the house. Ms. Hughes feels using the easterly entrance would require vehicles to back out onto Old Ranger Drive creating a safety issue. She stated she received her Certificate of Occupancy on July 29, 2002 and the building official made no mention of the circular drive. Ms. Hughes advised that due to curves on Old Ranger Drive from both the east and the west, a circular drive is safer than a single curb cut on either side of the driveway. Board member Lamy questioned whether the applicant feels her property sits within a blind corner. Applicant stated the property sits on 2 curves and people drive very fast down Old Ranger Road. Board member Lamy feels it would be dangerous to back out of the driveway from either corner. Director Joseph stated that when a building permit is issued based on the site plan showing one curb cut, the building official assumes this will be the permanent access. It is not uncommon for the building official to allow construction access to be other than the permanent access referred to on the approved site plan. He advised it is not the building official’s job at the time they are inspecting the structure to make sure the driveway is in the best possible place. Board member Sager stated the lot was not buildable without the variances Ms. Hughes acquired from the Board of Adjustment in May 2001. He feels the conditions have been self imposed by the property owner. Town Attorney White advised the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy does not waive the curb cut standards. The building official assumes that the site plan will be followed. The curb cut standard can only be waived by the Public Works Director not the building official. Planner Chilcott stated she did visit the site with Ms. Hughes and discussed the visual impact and the driveway configuration. She later visited the site with Greg RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1 March 4,2003 Sievers who did not feel there were adequate concerns to waive the standard. She stated it is ultimately the decision of Public Works to waive the standard not the Community Development Department. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to deny the variance to EVDC Appendix D.III.B.3.C to allow two (2) driveway curb cuts at 800 Old Ranger Drive and the motion passed with the following conditions. Those voting “yes” Sager, Barker, Newsom, and Ball. Those voting “no” Lamy. 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 driveway with one curb cut shall be constructed to meet Code and any abandoned curb cut shall be physically removed, at least three feet from the front property line. 4. LOT 30. CARRIAGE HILLS 7TH FILING. 1980 N SHARON COURT. APPLICANT: MICHAEL & AUDREY SEYBOLD - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM APPENDIX D.III.B.3.C OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The petitioner is appealing the Town Engineer’s decision not to waive the one driveway curb cut requirement to allow two curb cuts to remain at 1980 North Sharon Court. Multiple curb cuts were allowed on residential lots under the prior zoning code. The Estes Valley Development Code, effective February 1, 2000, limits residential lots to one curb cut. The applicant’s building permit #7011 was issued on September 18, 2001 for a single-family home. The site plan submitted with the building permit shows a driveway with one curb cut. The applicant did not construct the driveway as shown on the building permit and instead constructed a driveway with two curb cuts. Staff does not find any special circumstances or conditions related to this property that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated, nor that practical difficulty would result from strict compliance with this Code standard. A multiple curb cut driveway is not needed on this lot to relieve practical difficulties in developing the site. If staffs decision is not upheld and a \sno curb cut driveway is allowed on this lot, this will decrease road safety, impact the Public Works Department’s ability to provide public services, and impair the intent and purpose of the Code standard. Greg Sievers, Construction/Public Facilities Manager, stated the building permit site plan showed one curb cut. He advised the southerly access is approximately 50 feet from a stop sign at a busy intersection. Staff is willing to be flexible during the permit stage but not after the fact. Staff also does not find a hardship for this property. It is staffs recommendation to uphold the code. Board member Newsom stated that a letter should be sent to all the builders and contractors to advise them of the single curb cut requirement. Greg Sievers agreed that a letter would be appropriate. Chair Barker questioned whether or not Public Works would have approved 2 curb cuts at the building permit stage. Mr. Sievers stated Public Works would not have supported 2 curb cuts due to the lot being relatively flat. Public Works would have suggested that the house be resituated on the lot to make it possible for a turnaround to be constructed. Chair Barker asked if Public Works has any desire to change the 1 curb cut requirement. Mr. Sievers stated Public Works does not want to change the standards, and his research has shown that other states and counties have the same standards in place for safety reasons. Michael Seybold, 1980 North Sharon Court, has been informed by Public Works that the reasons for the 1 curb cut standard are to reduce snow ridge removal complaints, decrease the number of water drainage complaints, and decrease the wear and tear on the roads. He feels these are issues that can be addressed by the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 March 4,2003 homeowners or by the Town without limiting the number of curb cuts. Mr. Seybold stated there are a large percentage of homes with 2 curb cuts in the valley that have been grandfathered; therefore, he questions if this regulation is good for Estes Park. The Seybold’s are trying to reduce the traffic conflict points and increase safety by getting cars off the street and parking them in their driveway. North Sharon Court is a narrow street near a busy intersection. It has also been stated by Public Works that this is a widely used policy. Mr. Seybold’s research has shown that Fort Collins allows 2 curb cuts, Longmont allows 1 curb cut for every 100 feet of road frontage, and Loveland allows 1 curb cut, but is liberal with the requirement. He believes the code needs to be revised to make exceptions or perhaps allow homeowners the option to purchase additional curb cuts. He feels the code is not equally enforced. Board member Newsom stated the site plan submitted with the building permit showed one curb cut and 2 curb cuts are in violation of the established requirement. Mr. Seybold stated that they chose the location of the house in order to enhance the open space of their lot. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball) to deny the var,a|1J® Appendix D.1II.B.3.C to allow two (2) driveway curb cuts at 1980 North Sharon Court 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 Scott Avenue shall be removed, not covered over or blocked, at least three feet from the front property line within six (60) days of this Board of Adjustment hearing. Chair Barker stated the codes are not actively enforced and there is compliance through complaint. Board member Newsom would like to know if it is possible to find out how many accidents have occurred due to backing onto a right-of-way. ' Town Attorney White advised that he sent a letter to Jhe_ Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association in response to their letter to Dave Shirk dated January 23. 2003 He stated the Association’s letter made incorrect statements in regards to their ability to control the Board of Adjustment or the Development Code. There being no further business. Chair Barker ^ourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. Jeff Bdrkef, Chair adquelyn Williahison, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 4,2003 heavily -vegetated N02*00’00”W 80.00 Njr tA*> %\ Vi.' JATe’d---^ Si/ 25- SETBACK ;a to^ LiRING ^ 5sAr- Original Configuration heavily-VEGETATED pn - - -8v?---- __78___________ ^--------------------- NOZ’OO 00 W 80.00’ \i/ ■A TCf- JRING ^ Board of Adjustment Approved Configuration March 4,2003