Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2003-08-05RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 5, 2003, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Vice Chair Lamy, Members Newsom and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Member Barker, Planner Shirk, One Vacancy Vice Chair Lamy 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 June 3, 2003 meeting. 2. A PORTION OF LOT 121. AL FRESCO PLACE. 425 CHAPIN LANE. APPLICANT: STEVE CATHCART & TERESA HOIT - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a fifteen foot variance from the twenty-five foot side yard setback and a fifteen foot variance from the twenty-five foot rear yard setback to build a storage shed ten feet from the rear (western) property line. The lot is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum required lot size for new lots in the “E-1” Estate zoning district is one acre. The lot size (0.25 acres) is closest to the “R” Residential zoning district minimum required lot size of 0.25 acres. Staff recommends that the shed be setback at least fifteen feet from the rear property line. This variance request is needed in part because the lot is undersized for the zoning district and in part because of the triangular lot shape. The requested variances are substantial and if approved the entire shed will be within the twenty-five foot setback. The proposed addition may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. A storage shed conforming to the setbacks could be built on this lot if the driveway turn around area in front of the house was removed and the storage shed placed in front on the house. Staff believes placing the storage shed in this location would have a detrimental effect on the essential character of the neighborhood. The request could be minimized by shifting the proposed storage shed to the south with a rear setback of fifteen feet rather than ten feet. This may also require reducing the separation between the storage shed and the house from twelve feet to eight feet. The existing storage shed on the north side of the house encroaches into the twenty-five foot rear property line setback. This shed should be removed or relocated outside the setbacks. Steve Cathcart, applicant, stated he does not want to place the storage shed in front of the house. He has requested placing the shed at the northern end of the property in order to keep it out of view of Highway 34. He stated the crawl space under the house is small and not adequate storage space. He does not feel the requested location would block the view of his neighbors to the north and showed photos to help illustrate. Public Comment: Bob Meyer, 430 Big Horn Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He feels the applicant would be crowding the property line with the proposed placement of the shed, thereby decreasing his property value. He stated when the house was originally built the property owner asked for a variance to place the house farther north into the setback and was denied by the Board of Adjustment. He advised that no one in the neighborhood has a storage shed and granting a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 August 5, 2003 variance for a shed would change the character of the neighborhood. He feels the applicant has sufficient storage in the crawl space beneath his house. Erma Crowley, 429 Chapin Lane, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She stated the storage shed is too close to the property line. Camilla Saint, 2341 Larkspur Avenue, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. She feels the shed should be placed in front of the house within the setbacks. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) that this request be denied and the motion passed with one absent and one vacancy. Newsom and Sager. Those voting “no” Lamy. Those voting “yes’ 3. LOT 6. BLOCK 4. WINDCLIFF ESTATES. 5TH FiLING. 1531 ST MORTiZ TRAiL. APPLICANT: ED & MARGE GETCHELL - VARiANCE REQUEST FROM SECTiON 4. TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 1.9.E OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a front yard and side yard setback variance, as well as a variance to the maximum building height. The purpose of the variance requests is to build a single-family dwelling. The applicant requests a variance to the north side lot line to allow a setback of twenty-three feet in lieu of the twenty-five feet required; a variance of fifteen feet in lieu of the twenty-five feet required on the east lot line; and a maximum height measurement variance to allow a maximum height of forty-four feet in lieu of the maximum forty feet allowed. Staff considers the slope and lot depth, factored together; provide special conditions that would necessitate the front yard and height variances. However, the lot meets the minimum lot width standards established with the setback requirements. Therefore, special conditions do not apply to the side yard variance request. The property may be used for residential use, for which it was originally platted. A smaller dwelling could be built on the lot without the need for the requested variances. It is staffs opinion the applicant's predicament can be mitigated by methods other than a variance. Staff does not consider these requests substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not substantially change. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the house has been modified to fit the lot. He advised there is no neighbor conflict with this proposal and the homeowners association has also approved the plans. He presented a letter from Mr. Miller, neighbor to the north, accepting the encroachment to the north. They agree with all of the staff conditions of approval. He urged the Board to approve the north side yard setback along with the front setback and height request. Vice Chair Lamy questioned if there would be a retaining wall along the road and the driveway. Mr. Sheldon stated there would be a retaining wall. He advised the driveway meets the County standards of 12% slope. John Thiessen, architect for the applicants, stated the two foot variance to the north is crucial to the design of the house due to the slope of the lot and the height restrictions. Public Comment: John Hiatt, 3452 Eagle Cliff Drive, a member of the Alpine Meadow Homeowners Association Architectural Control Committee, stated the applicants have the full support of the committee for the requested variances. He advised that Ed Miller, neighbor to the north, has no issue with the requested two foot encroachment into the northern setback. Recognizing the effort by the petitioner to redesign the house to fit the lot, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request of two feet (2) from the northern twenty-five foot (25) side yard setback to build a house twenty-three feet (23) from the northern property line and the motion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 5, 2003 passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. Ail variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Buiiding Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months form the date the variance is granted. Recognizing the effort by the petitioner to redesign the house to fit the lot and the slope and lot depth, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request of ten feet (10) from the eastern twenty-five foot (25) front yard setback to build a house fifteen feet (15) from the eastern property line and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent and one vacancy. 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 tweive (12) months form the date the variance is granted. Recognizing the effort by the petitioner to redesign the house to fit the lot and the slope and lot depth, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request to aiiow a maximum height for a singie famiiy house of forty-four feet (44) in lieu of the maximum of forty feet (40) and the motion passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. Ail variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shaii become nuii and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months form the date the variance is granted. 1. Silt and construction barrier fencing shaii be installed prior to any excavation work, and shall be kept in working condition until all construction is completed. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. The finished floor elevation shaii match the control point #1 established with the site plan prepared by Van Horn Engineering (Project 03-02-17, 6-27-03 revision). A letter from a registered land surveyor verifying this match shall be submitted to the building official at the earliest feasible inspection. Full compliance with the Uniformed Building Code. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. The proposed cuivert design shall be reviewed and approved by Larimer County Engineering for compliance with applicable standards. The driveway shaii be designed in compliance with standards set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. This shall be addressed with building permit submittal. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 4. LOT 11. PARK HILLS SUBDIVISION. 287 JOEL ESTES DRIVE. APPLICANT: STEVE MCNEILL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance to the front yard setback along Mall Road of twenty-six feet and a variance to the setback along Joel Estes Drive of forty feet in lieu of the fifty foot setback required, and a side yard variance to allow a setback of twenty feet in lieu of the fifty feet required. The purpose of these variance requests is to allow a detached 864 square foot garage, and a three story 2,600 square foot addition to an existing cabin located at the intersection of Mall Road and Joel Estes Drive. The lot is significantly sub-sized for the “RE” Rural Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This lot, at .53 acres, is closer to the “R” Residential district, which has setbacks of fifteen foot (front and rear), and ten foot (side), which this proposal would meet. The lot is a triangular shape, which minimizes the buildable area. The existing house was built in 1938, prior to the establishment of setback requirements. The house was located legally at the time it was built. With the present setback requirements, it is impossible to do any expansion of the house without a variance and the applicant’s predicament can not be mitigated through some other method. Larimer County Engineering has requested the proposed garage receive access from Joel Estes Drive, and additional access onto Mall Road be denied. This request has been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 August 5, 2003 submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Director Joseph stated the property was zoned E-1 prior to the rezoning in February 2000 at which time it was rezoned RE, a more restrictive zoning designation. He also stated that granting of the variance would allow the homeowner to store those items currently stored outside in the garage, thereby cleaning up the yard. Board Member Sager questioned the Town’s regulations regarding on street parking. Director Joseph stated this property is in the unincorporated portion of the valley, and therefore, the Town Municipal Ordinances regarding on street parking do not apply. He feels granting of the variance would allow the homeowner the ability to build a separate garage and driveway, thereby alleviating the issue of stored cars and parking on the street. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant is in agreement will all staff conditions except for the guarantee for the proposed planting of trees to screen the proposed garage. He requests the Board consider removing this condition. The applicant would like to keep the garage detached to preserve the tree next to the house. He stated the applicant has agreed to redesign the driveway off of Joel Estes Drive. The Mall Road driveway will not be relocated because the driveway services the Spruce Knob Water Company pumping station. The applicant’s intentions are to maintain the property and its appearance. He feels the proposed garage will help. Mr. Sheldon stated during the redesign of Mall Road the McNeill’s negotiated a portion of their land to the right-of-way, for which they received compensation. This action was done for the overall benefit of the neighborhood and at the same time increases their current hardship due to the smaller lot size. Steve McNeill, applicant, stated the property was purchased in 1967 and has been a second home/vacation home. The setbacks were originally 6 feet and were increased 1972. He stated his family has decided to make this their permanent home. He is aware there have been issues with the storage of vehicles and trailers on his property. The house was one of the original Spruce Knob cabins that were rented. Parking has been along the street historically. He does not feel the addition would interfere with the views from the Bucher property. He stated the current storage shed on the property will be dismantled or sold. It is his intention to make the water pumping station along Mall Road look like the rest of the house by using the same siding and exterior color. It is his aim to clean up the property. Mr. McNeill stated he will install a drip irrigation system for the trees to be planted along the garage. Board Member Newsom questioned Mr. McNeill’s intentions for the 2 trailers and inoperable vehicle currently stored on his property. Mr. McNeill stated they will be disposed of as soon as possible. He would like to have the garage built and the yard cleared by September 30,2003. Vice Chair Lamy called for a 5 minute recess at 10:05 a.m. Public Comment: Duane Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. He stated he would be greatly affected by the proposed addition to the house and garage. He showed pictures illustrating his current view and the view after the proposed addition. He feels the 3 story addition would be out of character with the neighborhood, which is comprised of single story homes under 1,000 square feet. He also questions the intent of a garage with the same footprint as the current cabin. He is concerned with the time frame for construction. He stated the Spruce Knob Water Company does not allow irrigation. Board Member Sager questioned what could be done when a property owner does not maintain their property. Director Joseph stated the items photographed by Mr. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 August 5, 2003 Bucher would be considered an accumulation of junk. He advised the Director of Community Development has the ability to defer hearing a variance request do to outstanding violations such as an accumulation of junk. Based on his judgment, he felt the circumstances were tied to the request and granting the variance to build a garage would enable the property owner to store the items appropriately. He advised the Town can not regulate operable licensed vehicles on a lot. Board Members Newsom and Sager both questioned the time frame for the project and the expiration of building permits. Director Joseph advised it would be within the scope of the Board’s authority to set a reasonable construction deadline in order to mitigate the adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Board Member Sager stated during his site visit he walked along Mr. Bucher’s property line. He is of the opinion that Mr. Bucher’s view will not be greatly affected by the addition. He feels the photos presented by Mr. Bucher do not accurately illustrate the impact the addition will have on their view. Board Member Newsom agreed with Member Sager’s comments. Elmer Phinney, 309 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He stated that since Steve McNeill has owned the property it has been used as a junk yard that has gotten worse over the years. Diane and Becky Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. They have watched the property degrade to a point where they do not feel it is safe for their children to play outside. They would like to see a time limit on the project and funds placed aside for the removal of junk after construction. Becky Bucher also stated the character of the neighborhood would be altered with the approval of this addition. She is also concerned with the water consumption this size house will demand and the affects it will have on the Spruce Knob Water Company. Jerry Casler, 350 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He has seen the house degrade throughout the years and would like the property cleaned up before requesting a variance. He stated that 90 percent of the property owners in the neighborhood do not have garages and they do not store their items outside. John O’Connor, 280 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He feels the proposed addition and garage is out of character with the neighborhood and will substantially alter the character of the neighborhood. He stated the proposed garage has a larger footprint than his house. He questioned the intent of the proposed garage, i.e. storage, automotive workshop, etc. He feels that there can be beneficial use of the property without the proposed variance. He believes there are other alternatives for Mr. McNeill to store his belongings besides building a large structure on a lot in which it does not fit. Eleanor Casler, 350 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed variance request. She questions the application which states the property is connected to Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Mr. Sheldon stated that he was unaware the Spruce Knob Water Company does not allow irrigation. He stated the applicant intends to connect to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District and abandon the old septic system. The garage is for personal use and not for commercial use. Mr. Sheldon stated the current cabin is in violation of the setback requirement. If the applicant was to build in the building envelop it would increase the impact to Mr. Bucher’s view. Board Member Newsom asked the applicant how long it would take to complete the project and would he be using a contractor. Mr. McNeill stated he will be his own general contractor and would be hiring a concrete form setter. He stated the garage will be built and the property cleaned up by October 2003. He advised 2 trailers, 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 August 5, 2003 vehicles and one motorcycle will be stored onsite, all other vehicles and accumulation will be disposed of. After the slab/retaining walls are built for the addition, he will be using a contractor for framing and exterior finish. He has been advised that weather permitting this could be accomplished in 30 to 60 days. He stated he will then refinance or get a second mortgage to finish the inside of the house using local plumbers and electricians. Board Member Sager questioned the applicant on specific aspects of the proposed addition as shown on drawings provided to the Board. The applicant stated the plans provided to the Board are preliminary. He has not talked with an architect yet. Board Member Sager stated there appears to be several outstanding conditions for this property, such as the accumulation of junk and the lack of adequate building specifications. He would like to see the item tabled. Director Joseph stated he would like to see the item continued to next month. If he is directed by the Board, he will have the property cleared of violations prior to the next hearing. Board Member Sager would like to have more accurate drawings showing elevations and driveway access off of Joel Estes Drive. Vice Chair Lamy stated she would like the applicant to provide drawings that show how the addition will affect the neighbors view. Director Joseph stated the applicant could provide photo simulations. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to continue the request to the September meeting and it passed unanimously with one absent and one vacancy. 5. LOT 11. BELLEVUE HEIGHTS. 212 OLYMPUS LANE WEST. APPLICANT: MICHAEL BAKER - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4. TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 1.9.E OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a 1.2 foot variance from the ten foot western side yard setback and a 1.8 foot variance from the ten foot eastern side yard setback for the single-family house which is currently under construction, to allow the house to remain 8.8 feet from the western side property line and 8.2 feet from the eastern property line. The applicant is also requesting a four foot variance from the ten foot western side yard setback for the construction of a deck six feet from the western property line. The original application also requested a variance to the height standards. After receiving a height verification certificate from Richard England Surveying, staff determined the house complies with the height requirements of the code. The dimensions of the proposed single­ family residence are twenty-eight feet wide by thirty-two feet long and the footprint of the two story house will be 848 square feet. The applicant applied for Building Permit #03-B0228 in April 2003. On April 25, 2003 Chuck Harris, Larimer County Building Inspector, inspected the footings and requested a setback certificate. Chuck Harris informed Mike Kingswood, the contractor, that Larimer County Building Department’s policy is to not stop work prior to verification of compliance with the setbacks: however, if the contractor continues construction, he does so at his own risk. Richard England, England Surveying, Inc., prepared a certificate on May 5, 2003 showing that the house under construction encroached in to the eastern and western side yard setbacks. The contractor chose to continue construction. At the beginning of June, the Larimer County Building Inspector called the contractor because he had not received the setback certificate. The Building Inspector received the setback certificate June 19th or 20th. At this point framing was complete. Per Mike Kingswood, the contractor, based on his past experience he was not aware that the encroachment into the setback was a significant problem. On June 16, 2003, Bob Joseph informed the contractor that he was not going to ask the County Building Department to stop work; however, if he continues construction, he does so at his own risk and there is no guarantee that the Board of Adjustment will grant a variance. Prior to construction there were no significant special circumstances or conditions relative to the area or building that would have resulted in practical difficulty in complying with the Code standards. The lot size exceeds the minimum lot size in the zoning district and the lot width of 55.88 feet is only 4.12 feet narrower than the 60 foot minimum lot width requirement in the “R” Residential RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 August 5, 2003 zoning district. Since the expansion to the existing house is substantially complete compliance with the Code standard would require some demolition. The site plan submitted with the building permit application showed that the house could conform to the minimum setbacks. However, the house was not built in the location shown on the building permit. Michael Baker, applicant, stated he is requesting a variance because the house became askew during construction. He also stated that it is difficult to find the property lines in this neighborhood. Mike Kingswood, Kingswood Homes, 152 Stanley Circle, stated that Chuck Harris requested a setback certificate as he normally does when homes are placed close to setbacks. He didn’t give the location certificate to Chuck Harris until the next inspection. Board Member Sager questioned why Mr. Kingswood did not feel the encroachment into the setback was a significant issue. Mr. Kingswood stated his past experience led him to believe that if the variance request was within 10 percent of the setback it could be handled in house by the planning staff. Board Member Newsom stated he finds it hard to believe that a builder in town is unaware of the setbacks and the significance of encroaching into the setbacks. He also stated the site plan submitted with the building permit showed the house within the setback requirements. He feels the house was skewed to get a better view. Mr. Kingswood stated he was dealing with very small tolerances and did not deliberately skew the house. Board Member Newsom advised that it is still the responsibility of the builder to make sure the house is located within the setbacks. Director Joseph stated the house was framed, the trusses set and the house was already being drywalled during his initial site visit. At the time, he informed Mr. Kingswood he could continue to build at his own risk. Director Joseph stated if the house were at an earlier stage he would have stopped work. Vice Chair Lamy stated that gaining the best possible views is one consideration when placing a house on the lot; however those considerations must be made with the code and neighbors in mind. She feels there is evidence showing the lack of regard for the rules and regulations of the code. Public Comment: Winifred Clements, 240 Olympus Lane West, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. She is an adjacent property owner. She was surprised when she returned this spring to see the rather tall house encroaching into the setback and their privacy. Louis Clements, 240 Olympus Lane West, spoke in opposition of the requested variance. He questioned why the applicant was able to build on the lot if it does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the code. Director Joseph stated those standards apply to new subdivisions and do not apply to old subdivisions that were legally subdivided. The new regulations can not render a legally created lot unbuildable. Mr. Clements also questioned if the County requires an inspection of the footings before the pour. Director Joseph stated Chuck Harris, County Building Official, required a setback certificate; however he did not stop work until the certificate was obtained. He stated the building official is not there to manage the construction site; it is the responsibility of the contractor. Marguerite Holden, 2220 Bellevue Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She feels they did not obey the laws and that they should have been stopped. Steve Rodgers, 186 West Olympus Lane, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He stated the house sits very close to the property line. He feels the contractor neglected to build the house as shown on the original site plan. The applicant’s letter to the Board stating the house was skewed to obtain the best possible views also shows a willingness to go above and beyond the code RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 5, 2003 8 Steve Rodgers, 186 West Olympus Lane, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He stated the house sits very close to the property line. He feels the contractor neglected to build the house as shown on the original site plan. The applicant’s letter to the Board stating the house was skewed to obtain the best possible views also shows a willingness to go above and beyond the code requirements. He feels the adjacent property owner’s privacy has not been taken into account. Mr. Kingswood stated skewing the house was the original intent even with the original submittal. Skewing the house further was not done intentionally. He accepts responsibility for what has happened. He stated he could keep the deck shorter, and is willing to work on helping to ensure the privacy of the neighbors with plantings or screens. Because the house was not built to the site plan submitted with the building permit, it was moved (Newsom) that this request be denied and the motion was not seconded. Recognizing the placement of the house was not done maliciously, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to approve a variance request of 1.2 feet from the western ten foot (10) side yard setback, 1.8 feet from the eastern ten foot (10) side yard setback to build a house 8.8 feet from the western property line and 8.2 feet from the eastern property line, and allow the construction of a deck to encroach no further than the corner of the house at 8.8 feet from the western property line and the motion passed with one^ absent and one vacancy. Those voting “yes” Lamy and Sager. Those voting “no” Newsom. 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 form 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 2. The applicant shall follow through with their offer to provide screening from their deck and the adjacent property to the west. 6. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Vice Chair Lamy adjourned the meeting at 12.35 p.m. i/i.LV.. M, L Oi.rAAj /VKrt Judy l^my. Vice Chair 1r Jacduelyfii Williamson, Recording Secretary