Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-08-02 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 2, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, John Lynch, and one vacancy Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Newsom, Moreau, and Smith Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Moreau Chair Lynch 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 June 7, 2016. Approval of minutes dated July 12, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one vacancy. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 1337 CLARA DRIVE, TEMPLE RESIDENCE VARIANCE Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Jim and Linda Temple, requested a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 50-foot setbacks in the RE–Rural Estate zone district. The applicant desires to encroach 20 feet into the setback to construct a proposed detached two- car garage with a carport. The proposed structure would be approximately 1200 square feet located on the east side of the existing residence. The existing residence is a legal non-conforming accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The lot is approximately 4.38 acres in size, which substantially meets the 2.5 acre minimum lot size for this zone district. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 August 2, 2016 Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies. No major comments or concerns were received. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Again, no comments were received. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the property has significant rock outcroppings, and putting the garage outside the setback would require blasting. Further east, there is an existing single family home and a small cabin. With the variance, the garage would be located approximately 38 feet from the single-family dwelling. Locating the proposed garage on the west side of the ADU would require excessive rock blasting and potentially affect a key drainage area on the site. The north portion of the lot would be a very challenging site in regards to topography and natural features. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the existing ADU can be used without a detached garage. The lot size allows up to approximately 3,000 square feet of gross floor area of accessory uses. The proposed accessory use is allowed on the property. In order to avoid a main drainage feature on the site and rock blasting, the applicant proposes to place the building on the east side of the existing ADU, 30 feet from the east property line versus the 50 feet required. The structure also proposes to utilize the existing driveway on the site. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance is not substantial in regard to the level of deviation requested. The deviation from Code standards would be a 40% deviation. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for requests over 25%. 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 single-family character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. The property to the east of the subject property is developed with a single- family home and a small cabin, which is located eight feet from the property line. The small cabin would be located approximately 38 feet from the proposed garage at 1337 Clara Drive. Staff found several homes and small structures have been built within the 50-foot required setback in this neighborhood. These structures were most likely built prior to setback regulations and are considered legal non-conforming structures. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 2, 2016 Staff found approval of this 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 in 2012. The RE–Rural Estate zone district setback requirements were in effect at the time of purchase. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff finds this is the only practical method to construct this building at this location. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief: Staff found the conditions of this application are not general. They are specific to this property, size, and orientation. 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 no reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found the new structure appears to be a reasonable development proposal and aims to make a practical decision in the placement of the building. This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief. 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. Staff found 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 judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff found a setback certificate shall be provided to Staff for review to verify compliance with the approved variance for the detached garage. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request with one condition of approval, listed below. Member and Staff Discussion Planner Gonzales stated the applicant was not present. Member Newsom stated the gate was locked and he was unable to access the property. He questioned why the garage couldn’t be located closer to the house. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 August 2, 2016 Planner Gonzales stated there are many rock outcroppings that would require blasting. Member Moreau stated blasting would still be required. Member Smith stated he thought the garage could be located closer to the house. Member Lynch stated the buildings were constructed in the early 1900s, and the proposed location would not be detrimental to the adjacent property owners, as the property is over four acres in size. There was discussion about the proposed location and the effects of the rock outcroppings. Planner Gonzales stated the Board could vote to continue the meeting to allow the applicant to attend and let the members know if testing has been done to locate the bedrock on the site. Director Hunt stated it would be appropriate to continue the meeting so the applicant could speak to the Board. Public Comment None. Condition of Approval 1. A setback certificate shall be provided to Community Development Staff to verify compliance with the approved variance for the detached garage. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to continue the variance application to the next meeting in order for the applicant to be present and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. 4. LOT 2, ESTES PARK SCHOOLS SUBDIVISION, 650 COMMUNITY DRIVE, ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER VARIANCE Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. She stated the variance request was from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, Density and Dimensional Standards, which has a maximum height limit of 30 feet. The request is to exceed the 30-foot height limit by just over one foot (1’- 3/8”) to accommodate a defined main entry to the community center building. The 6.49 acre site is located at the corner of Community Drive and Manford Avenue, with a slope to the north. The property is zone CO–Commercial Outyling, and previously contained the old elementary school. The proposal includes a publicly-owned community center, approximately 66,000 square feet in size, and incorporates the existing 12,552 square foot aquatics center. Planner McCool stated there have been other development review decisions concerning this project. A Development Plan was approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on July 19, 2016. There was one condition of approval with that decision; the requirement to construct a sidewalk on the Manford Avenue side of the property. The applicant received approval of a Minor Subdivision Plat by the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 August 2, 2016 Town board on July 26, 2016. This application created two lots, one containing the existing school buildings and the other to accommodate the proposed community center. The final application is for the height variance. The variance application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No significant comments were received. Planner McCool stated the defined main entry of the building, as planned, would exceed the height limit. The area where the main entry would be most visible would be along Community Drive. The extended height makes up only 20 feet of the entire building frontage, and will be difficult to discern if you are walking or driving by the proposed building. She stated the east side of the building will be the front, and the building location will be on the interior of the lot. She stated the design of the proposed community center has gone through many changes, including one with a height of 15 feet over the 30-foot limit. Today’s application is the result of a lot of hard work by the applicant and designers. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the subject development includes an adaptive reuse component of the existing aquatics building, which limits significant grading of the site and promotes a more environmentally sustainable project, saving both material and energy resources by using as much of the existing facility as possible. Due to the sloping nature of the site, the sloping roof above the building entry/lobby protrudes slightly above allowable limits. The proposed height and materials are consistent with the existing Aquatics Building structure and surrounding school buildings. As such, the interior configuration of the building and ability to incorporate the aquatics facility into the building design, makes it an appropriate location for additional height slightly beyond that permitted in the Outlying Commercial zone. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, especially in consideration of design and breaking up the façade to create visual relief and stepping down buildings with sloping grades. It also advances community design, mobility and circulation and economic policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the proposal includes the redevelopment of the site of the old elementary school, which was demolished a few years ago. The applicant proposes to retain the existing Aquatics Building and create a Community Center addition that steps down with the sloping grade. Decreasing the height by 1’ - 0 3/8” significantly impacts the sloping grade and proportions of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 August 2, 2016 façade, making development of the Community Center challenging. Considering that the portion of the roof that is visible to the public will be in compliance with the building height regulations, staff finds that the current design meets the intent of the code. The property could be put to beneficial use without the variance; however, granting the proposed variance will effectively improve the visual appearance of the building and will not create a visual obstruction. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request includes a maximum deviation of 1’ – 0 3/8” above the 30’ height limit, with the greatest height located on the downhill slope along the eastern building frontage, most visible at the main entry (interior to the parking area). The new addition will not appear out of scale with the surrounding form as the peak height of the building will not be visible at the pedestrian street level. The variance requested is less than a 10% deviation from requirements, consistent with surrounding form, and is not found to be substantial. 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 adjoining properties will not be substantially impacted by the results of the variance. The tallest point of the building is internally-oriented towards the parking area on the east elevation, with a separation of approximately 200 feet from the western property line, and accommodates the sloping roof that creates a defined main entry. The only elevation where the roof protrusion may be visible to adjoining properties is along Community Drive (west), but will likely not be seen at the street level. The proposed height is compatible with surrounding building form. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found the requested variance would not adversely affect public service delivery. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found the subject property is owned by the School District. The applicant, Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, will purchase the property with the knowledge that a height variance is necessary to construct a quality community center as proposed. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found the applicant’s proposal cannot be accommodated through any other method except a variance. The applicant has explored the possibility of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 August 2, 2016 reducing the grade by another foot to accommodate the height, but the 2:12 slope would be a challenge for development and building at this grade would change the proportions of the building significantly. By reducing the height, the architectural interest of the building would be lost. 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 the applicant’s request for a variance is due to unique site characteristics and the adaptive reuse component of this particular project. Incorporating the existing aquatics building limits the ability to considerably grade the site, but slopes on the site create a challenge. The applicant has provided mitigation strategies (consideration of location, architectural enhancements and varying roof heights) to alleviate potential impacts and improve the overall appearance of the façade. The conditions of the site are not a commonality, and are not of so general or recurrent of a nature as to make it reasonable for the regulation to be changed to accommodate similar circumstances. 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 variance request will not result in a reduction in the size of lots contained in the Estes Park Schools Subdivision. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found the applicant has demonstrated that the lobby/entry can be accommodated by a minimum height of 31’-0 3/8” or 1’-0 3/8” variation from the 30’ height limit. In order to minimize the height of the entry/lobby area, the applicant would have to construct further below grade to accommodate the lobby area design. The applicant has incorporated exterior awnings, a sloped roof, multiple windows, building variation, and material changes to enhance the appearance of the building and effectively minimize the additional 1’-0 3/8” in building height along Community Drive. As such, the proposed architectural design represents the least variation from the building height requirements that will afford relief, and ensure the character of the area is maintained. 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 requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted in the CO–Commercial Outyling zone district. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8 August 2, 2016 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 no conditions of approval relating to the building height variance; however, the Board may set forth conditions of approval to address any concerns that arise during the public hearing. Staff and Member Discussion Member Newsom questioned the need to come before the Board of Adjustment for such a minor variance. Planner McCool explained staff does not have the authority to grant any deviations from Code requirements resulting in an increase in building height. As such, all height variance requests must be reviewed and approved by the Board. Public Comment Tom Carosello/applicant stated the school district and recreation district are working on the conveyance of the property from one entity to the other. He stated they originally wanted a higher, cathedral-type ceiling, but redesigned the feature to be more in compliance with the EVDC. Member Moreau suggested the applicant increase the amount of the variance request to allow for any minor construction discrepancies. The amount of variance requested seems too exact for the building process in Estes Park. Conditions of Approval 1. A height certificate verifying compliance with the variance shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. 5. REPORTS 1. Recording Secretary Thompson reported the vacancy on the Board has not yet been filled by the County. 2. Director Hunt reported he was glad to be in Estes Park and looked forward to working with the Board members. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 a.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9 August 2, 2016 ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary