Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-12-06RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 6, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair John Lunch, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, Rex Poggenpohl Attending:Members Lynch, Smith, Moreau, Newsom, and Poggenpohl Also Attending:Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:None Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were three people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that he was recently appointed to this Board, and during his site visits he has seen several without the required variance sign posted on the property. He stated this was an injustice to the public, as they are not aware of the application unless they are adjacent property owners and received the mailing. He asked staff to consider a better way to make the public aware of the application. Director Hunt stated the Town is required to publish a legal notice, while the sign posting has been the applicant’s responsibility. If no sign is posted, the Board has the perogative to postpone the application review if they think it is appropriate; however, this would be an extreme measure. There was additional general discussion about the posting of the variance notice and staking of the property, which is also required by the applicant. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated November 1, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith)to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 1A, BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS; 915 MORAINE AVENUE; SUNDECK RESTAURANT LOT Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-5, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for all lots fronting an arterial in the CO–Commercial Outlying zone district. The applicant, Flatirons Hospitality, LLC requests to allow a lot size of 14,591 square feet to bring this lot and the adjacent lot more into compliance with the existing built environment, and to generally clean up the plat. He stated the one of the subject lot lines actually runs through an existing building, and the building is in two different zone districts. This is not good planning practice. The variance application is one of three applications undergoing review, the others being an amended plat and a rezoning request. Planner Gonzales stated a legal notice was published and notices were sent to adjacent property owners. No major comments or concerns were received. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGSS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 6, 2016 Staff found this particular area complicated, with lot lines running through buildings, and two different zone districts encompassing the six legally non- conforming lots. These issues make re-development very challenging, as building setbacks are measured from every platted lot line, and any addition to a building would require a setback variance. The unusual triangular shape of the lot and unique situation with the property lines create a special circumstance or condition. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the property can remain with its current configuration of lots, but redevelopment would be extremely limited. Lots could not be sold off individually. The variance is a portion of the process that needs to occur to clean up the plat. The end result, if all applications are approved, would be two lots; one on the west zoned A–Accommodations and the lot on the east zoned CO–Commercial Outlying. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance is not substantial, considering the situation. The goal is to bring the area more into compliance with the existing built environment. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance: Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as the property is already built out. Reducing the lot size has zero impact on the neighborhood. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found it unclear as to whether the applicant knew of the requirement when they purchased the property. The tax assessor shows the area as one parcel. It is unlikely any owner would have known that reducing a lot size would require a variance. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; A Variance is the only method available to mitigate this predicament. The entire property could be amended to be one large lot; however, the restaurant could not be sold off separately from the hotel. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff found conditions of this application are not general in nature. It is common to find non-conforming lots in the Estes Valley, but not common to find property boundaries crossing through a building, especially with two different zone districts. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff found the project is changing from six lots to two. The entire project is aimed at reducing non-conformities and cleaning up the plat. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found this variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the proposal, but other options do exist. One lot could be created from the six existing lots. This would require a rezoning and would rationalize the two businesses in one ownership. RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGSS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 6, 2016 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff is not recommending any conditions at this time. Any easements, access agreements, etc. will be addressed through the Amended Plat and Rezoning processes. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance. Staff and Member Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: The existing situation with the lot lines is not a current practice. The building codes also have provisions for the prohibition of buildings across lot lines. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the variance would be one step in cleaning up the parcel and then allow for greater redevelopment opportunities. There are plans to grant a sewer easement and have a parking agreement between the two parcels to make the development practical. Conditions of Approval None. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Poggenpohl)to approve the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. LOT 1, LAKE ESTES ADDITION; 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE; ESTES PARK RESORT Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.2.b Wetland Setbacks. The applicant, Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties, LLC, requests a 25-foot setback in lieu of the 50-foot setback required from wetlands. Planner Gonzales stated the applicant has plans to develop the property as an extension of the current Estes Park Resort. The current plan is to construct 21 two-unit buildings. No proposed structure would be closer than 25 feet from the delineated edge of the existing wetland. If the variance is approved, a new 25-foot wetland setback would be established. Planner Gonzales stated the property owner had the opportunity to construct another large multi-story hotel, but chose to have a lower density development with the townhomes. A wetland study was completed and it was determined two separate wetland areas exist. Per the EVDC definition, these are wetlands, as they contain saturated soils that have the capability to support aquatic vegetation. The applicants provided information to staff showing wetlands on the “shelf”, and the wetland study classifies these as a self- sustaining wetland community. They are non-jurisdictional and are not found on any official maps. Planner Gonzales stated a legal notice was published and adjacent property owners were notified. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz commented, and staff received one public comment opposing the variance request. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the property is zoned A–Accommodations and is approximately 9.1 acres in size. The project proposes 21 two-unit townhomes, with an open site RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGSS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 6, 2016 concept with few roads, attractive landscape buffers and walking paths. Information provided to staff regarding the wetland study indicate the existing wetland areas to be non-jurisdictional, and are not found on the Town of Estes Park wetland map, National Wetland Inventory Map, or the USGS Survey map for the area. Staff found the proposed location for the townhome units is practical. A 25-foot setback area shall remain around the wetlands area. The applicant has proposed a designated open space in the wetland area during the development process. Staff is recommending the open space designation be a condition of approval of the variance. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the property could still be developed with a 50-foot wetland setback; however, a greater density would have to be established for development. This would involve clustering development and potentially building upwards. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance is at a 50% reduction from code. This is not substantial in regards to the physical location, but is numerically substantial at 50%. Wetlands have been documented at this location for at least the last ten years. The intent of the project is to create low-profile development, and a variance like this would promote this type of development rather than building up. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance: Staff found the character would not be changed in regards to the physical location of the townhomes, as there are accommodations units to the north and east of the subject property. It is a change to the existing neighbor to the west, as this has been a vacant lot for many years. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the 50- foot setback. This area has undergone several redevelopment proposals. The current iteration of a low density profile development requires the need for a variance. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; A Variance is the only method available to accomplish the desired outcome. Staff is exploring the idea of amending the EVDC wetland setback requirements to be more aligned with federal regulations and reasonable development expectations in the Estes Valley. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff found it is not uncommon to find saturated soils throughout the Estes Valley, but it is uncommon to find such large wetland areas that are non-jurisdictional. Staff does not believe this situation is general or common in the valley. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff found no reduction in lot size is proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGSS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 December 6, 2016 Staff found the variance will represent the least deviation from the Code, but other options do exist. Proposed building locations could be moved, a less dense development could be built, or units could be stacked. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff recommends a condition be placed on any future Development Plan or Subdivision for this property utilizing this setback variance to protect the wetlands and 25-foot setback by designating them as “private open space” or “no disturbance area”. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request, with conditions. Staff and Member Discussion There was discussion regarding protecting the wetland area on the Development Plan, and it was suggested the Board of Adjustment impose a condition of approval for the variance to require the designation of open space or no disturbance area on the Development Plan. There was brief discussion regarding jurisdictional wetlands and the EVDC. Planner Gonzales stated staff is unsure where the 50-foot wetland setback originated. A code amendment may be proposed in the future, but additional research needs to occur prior to an amendment being drafted. Public Comment Darcy Tiglas/wetland specialist stated there is a topographic shelf just to the north of the wetland area. She conducted a wetland delineation on this area ten years ago, and there has been minimal change, even after the 2013 flood. She explained in detail how the wetland delineation is conducted. She stated leaving the natural feature is definitely beneficial to the wildlife. The proposed development is already surrounded by development, and this is considered an infill project, which is better than developing an open area in another part of the valley. Jes Reetz/applicant representative stated this project has been evolving for several years. No site disturbance is planned for the wetland area. Mike Mangleson/town resident was opposed to the variance request. He showed two videos of elk migrating through the proposed developed area. He stated the elk gravitate to the wetland area, where the grass is usually two to three feet tall. Water fowl are not there too often, but mammals are there all the time and stay for extended periods of time. He is concerned about large corporations that want to develop in the Estes Valley with no regards to wildlife. He appreciated the consideration of the Board to disapprove the variance request. Condition of Approval 1. Delineated wetlands and 25-foot setback areas shall be designated as a protected no-build area on future Development Plan or Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith)to approve the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGSS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 December 6, 2016 5. REPORTS A. Director Hunt explained to the Board if a motion to approve or disapprove was not made during the hearing, the application would be automatically continued to the next meeting. If the members do not make the motion, the chair can make the motion, though it is discouraged in Robert’s rules of order. B. Director Hunt reported the Board of Adjustment will not have a direct role in reviews of Vacation Homes. There is an ordinance regarding Vacation Homes going through the hearing process, which states the Board of Adjustment is the Appeals board for staff decisions. C. Director Hunt reported the Estes Park Board of Appeals had a meeting in November to review the building code aspects of vacation rentals. Another meeting will be held December 8th at 4 p.m. to continue this discussion. It was clarified the Estes Park Board of Appeals has authority only within the Town limits, not the surrounding Estes Valley. D. Director Hunt reported there are several EVDC Revisions on the table, and the Board of Adjustment will be included in the review process. If there are too many variances for certain code provisions, then it is justified to take a hard look at the code and determine if changes need to be made. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:08 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary