Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-06-07 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 7, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Don Darling, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, and John Lynch Attending: Chair Darling, Members Newsom, Lynch, and Smith Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Moreau Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five 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 None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated May 3, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0 with Member Moreau absent and Member Lynch abstaining. 3. LOT 4A, 2nd AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 4 & 5, SPANIER SUBDIVISION, 1774 Spur 66; The Landing at Estes Park Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Jennifer and Jerome Johnston, requested variances from EVDC Section 7.5.F.2.b(3) Landscape Buffering and Screening, and 7.5.G.2.b(1) Parking Lot Landscaping. The request is to allow a 12.5-foot wide street and parking lot landscape buffer in lieu of the 25- foot wide required buffer in the A–Accommodations zone district. These areas overlap on the lot. The site is in the unincorporated Estes Valley. Planner Gonzales stated there was an informal 20-foot buffer. A recently approved amended plat reduced the buffer area to 12.5 feet. There is a portion of the site that could meet the required buffer, but the location is not ideal regarding the rest of the development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 7, 2016 Planner Gonzales stated the site recently underwent a Development Plan review to redevelop into Resort Lodge/Cabin use. The plan was approved March 29, 2016 and includes remodeling the existing cabins and lodge building and building two new cabins and a private recreational hall. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A notice was published in the local newspaper. No major comments or concerns were received by affected agencies, and no public comments were received. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: The property was originally developed in the 1970’s with three cabins along the river, and has been used with this configuration for the last 40 years. With the Amended Plat and Development Plan applications, an additional ten feet of right- of-way was required to be dedicated, reducing the existing buffer area. The proposed parking area will be asphalt and have curb and gutter. Code requirements for this type of development at this location call for a 25-foot landscape buffer along Highway 66. Providing a 25-foot street landscape and parking lot buffer would require the parking area to be reduced by 12.5 feet, which would eliminate the drive aisle and make the existing and proposed parking inaccessible. Staff feels the site had many constraints in the pre-development stage and has address many of those issues. The variance request would relieve practical and topographical difficulties associated with redeveloping an existing site. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the existing configuration of the site may continue to be used. Any substantial redevelopment of the site would require a Development Plan, which would require the landscape buffers. The existing buffer is not code compliant in regards to width or landscape units. The existing strip of land is merely grass and dirt, while the proposed buffer would consist of a mix of trees, shrubs, and boulders. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request is for a 50% reduction from code requirements, from 25 feet to 12.5 feet. The parking area location is below the view plane of Highway 66, and proposed landscaping will help shield and buffer parking from the road. The existing grass area in the additional 10-feet of right-of-way will not be altered. 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 of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining property would not suffer a detriment. Staff believes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 June 7, 2016 the redevelopment proposal would enhance the neighborhood. The parking area will be improved. Additional parking is proposed on the western portion of the site that would include the same 12.5 landscape buffer width. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found the approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. All public service locations were approved with the development plan. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; The applicant assumed Highway 66 was a Minor Collector Street, based on the Larimer County classification. Through the Amended Plat process, additional right-of-way was required to be dedicated. Per code, any street with a 60-foot right-of-way or greater is designated an Arterial Street, and landscaping standards increase from a 15-foot buffer to a 25-foot buffer. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found because this is a redevelopment project, the constraints of the site are numerous. Meeting landscaping code standards would require the existing parking area to be moved to the lower portion of the site. This would conflict with fire access and river setback requirements. Formalizing the existing parking area is the most practical solution for this property. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief: Staff found the variance request is a result of additional right-of-way dedicated through the Amended Plat and Development Plan process. A variance would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the site to be redeveloped as proposed. 4. 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 found all proposed landscaping shall be irrigated per the approved Development Plan. The applicant shall also provide as-builts for the parking area and sidewalks which shall ensure compliance with the approved plans. Staff has no additional conditions of approval for this variance request. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request with no recommended conditions. Member and Staff Discussion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 June 7, 2016 Chair Darling inquired about the location of the original sign (in the right-of-way). Planner Gonzales stated the original sign was recently removed, with a new sign erected entirely on the applicant’s property. Public Comment The applicants were in attendance but had no comment. Member and Staff Discussion Planner Gonzales stated the appropriate place for a trail or sidewalk along this property would be right along the road within the right-of-way. The county would be responsible for plowing a sidewalk. If a trail was installed instead, the Town and County would negotiate the maintenance. The county engineer had no comments on the variance, but did have comments on the development plan. The grassy area on the plan will remain in order to have a larger pervious area. Several members commented on how much of an improvement to the area this redevelopment would be. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance with the findings presented by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. LOT 1A, LARIMER TERMINALS SUBDIVISION, 444 ELM ROAD; Polar Gas Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The property is located in the unincorporated Estes Valley and is currently occupied by Polar Gas. The variance request is to allow a 0.92-foot front setback in lieu of the 15-foot required front setback required in the I-1–Industrial zone district. Approval of the variance would allow an existing 144 square foot building to remain at its current location, which is almost entirely in the setback. Planner Gonzales stated the building was constructed in 2007 without proper building permits. Earlier this year, staff conducted a site analysis in regards to a code violation. At that time, staff gave the property owners the option of moving the building or applying for a variance. The building is currently used as the office for Polar Gas. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A notice was published in the local newspaper. No major comments or concerns were received by affected agencies or the general public. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 June 7, 2016 Staff found the property is approximately 1.727 acres and zoned I-1–Industrial. Only 50% of the site is being used due to the steepness of slope. The existing building was placed on a concrete foundation and is located almost entirely within the 15-foot front setback. Staff found no reason the building could not have been placed at a different location. At 144 square feet, size was not an issue. There are no special circumstances or conditions associated with this property that would justify the current building location. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found without the variance, the shed/office building would need to be relocated on the property. If the variance is granted, the building may continue to be used at its current location. Relocating the building would create additional costs for demolition and new construction. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request is for nearly a 100% reduction from Code requirements; therefore, substantial in that regard. Staff did not find that allowing the building to continue to be used at this location was a substantial request, as it has been there since 2007 with no comments or concerns presented to the Community Development Department. 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 of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. No complaints or documented adverse impacts have been noted in the nine years the building has been in place. Drainage, lighting, access, etc. were reviewed with this application. 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. The application was routed to various reviewing agencies and no comment or concerns were received in regards to the 10-foot utility easement. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found the shed/staging office was constructed in 2007 when the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) setbacks were in effect. A county building permit was not applied for in 2007, which would have flagged this location as inappropriate. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found the building could be placed at a new location, compliant with the EVDC. Because the building is constructed on a permanent concrete RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 June 7, 2016 foundation and no complaints or concerns have been received, staff believes the location of this small office building is not detrimental or poses any risks to the property or adjacent properties. Relocating the building is not financially practical. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief: Staff found a variance would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the building to continue to be located at this location on the property. 4. 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 the applicant apply for a Larimer County building within 30 days. If the building permit is denied, the variance would become null and void. Public Comment Nathan Reed/applicant stated he leased the property from Doug Klink, and the property line was incorrectly determined. Had he truly known where the property line was, he would have built the structure in a compliant area. Mr. Reed stated the Zoning Approval Form was completed and approved by former Planner Dave Shirk following a site visit; however, a county building permit was never applied for. He presented a copy of a zoning approval form, required for projects in the EVDC area but outside of town limits. (Note: this was the first staff had heard of or seen an approved zoning form for this location). Chair Darling stated a site plan would have shown the property lines and setbacks. Mickey Leyba/applicant stated they called the county building department and there was some confusion as to whether or not a building permit was required for this size building. Chair Darling recommended the applicants speak with the Larimer County Building Department regarding the building permit process. Member comments included but were not limited to: the applicant did his due diligence prior to construction; the 2003 adopted building codes were in effect in 2007, and permits were required for any structures over 100 square feet; if the road is expanded in the future it will be completely on the subject property. Conditions of Approval 1. If required by the County, a building permit shall be applied for with one month of variance approval. If the building permit is not issued by the County, the Variance shall become null and void. 2. Proof of the County permit issuance shall be provided to Community Development staff. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 June 7, 2016 It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. REPORTS 1. Recording Secretary Thompson reported on the hiring process for a new Community Development Director and a Planner to replace Phil Kleisler. The Director candidate turned down the offer of employment and the position was reopened. Two interview teams will be interviewing three candidates this Friday, June 10th. The top two choices for the Planner position turned down the offer. That position has been reposted and interviews are forthcoming. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 a.m. NOTE: Following adjournment of the meeting, Chair Darling informed Secretary Thompson that he no longer lived in the Estes Valley Development Code area; therefore, was no long qualified to serve on the Board of Adjustment, effective immediately. ___________________________________ Don Darling, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary