Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-09-13RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 13, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, John Lynch, Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Members Lynch, Newsom, Poggenpohl and Smith Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Moreau Member 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 August 2, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 3-0 with Member Moreau absent and Member Poggenpohl abstaining. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1337 CLARA DRIVE, TEMPLE RESIDENCE VARIANCE REQUEST Chair Lynch stated this agenda item was continued from last month so the applicant or a representative could be present to answer questions from the Board. The criteria for review can be read in the minutes from the August 2, 2016 Board of Adjustment meeting. Applicant Aubrey Carson stated the primary reason for choosing this location was because of the rock outcroppings and existing drainage. Another reason not as evident was the concern that the excavation could compromise the boulder movement and the foundation of the existing dwelling. Keeping this distance would allow excavation with a reasonable amount of separation. The proposed garage location would be an extension of the current driveway. Blasting is not an option due to the location of the rock RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 September 13, 2016 outcroppings. The existing propane tank will be relocated. Mr. Carson stated the existing dwelling is unoccupied. He will hire a structural engineer to draw and stamp the plans. Member Lynch stated there could be additional drainage issues if the garage was moved closer to the home. Mr. Carson was concerned about more hydrostatic pressure on the foundation if the garage was placed any closer to the existing dwelling. Other comments included but were not limited to: the garage could be moved 10 feet closer to the existing home and further south, if needed, to help the drainage (Poggenpohl); we should consider how the project fits on the lot, and the lot size would have minimal impact to the adjacent property owners (Lynch); there were no plans to blast (Carson); moving the garage six feet closer to the home would still require a variance (Gonzales); the property owner is an excavating contractor and should know what he’s doing regarding blasting and excavating for the garage (Newsom). It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the variance as presented with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-1 with Member Poggenpohl voting against and Member Moreau absent. 4. LOT 8, RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARK HILL, 2061 E. HIGHWAY 36, BRUELL RESIDENCE VARIANCE REQUEST Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a post-construction variance request to allow 8-foot and 11-foot setbacks in lieu of the 50-foot setbacks required in the RE– Rural Estate zone district. Planner Gonzales stated staff met with the project representative in July, 2016, to discuss a building permit application. At that time, it was discovered there were additions to the existing single-family dwelling that were not permitted and located within the setback. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and notice was sent to adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. The only comment/concern received was from the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment regarding the septic system and whether it is large enough to accommodate the remodeled single-family dwelling. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the property is approximately 0.84-acres in size and is zoned RE–Rural Estate. The building addition was constructed between 2012-2013 without obtaining a building permit from the County. The addition was placed entirely within the 50-foot required setback. When the home and garage were built in the late 60’s the property was zoned A-Accommodations and had a 10-foot setback on the side and rear. The home and garage were compliant with zoning regulations at the time. During the Valley-wide rezoning in 2000 the property was zoned to RE which had a 50-foot setback on all property sides. The existing home and garage then became RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 September 13, 2016 legally non-conforming. Any building addition had to take place outside of the setback or apply for a Variance in order to be constructed within the setback. Staff found that any building addition to the home or garage would have needed a Variance in 2012 when the addition was added. The owner failed to obtain a building permit and go through the Variance process. The special circumstance that exists at this site is the fact that the existing structures are entirely within the 50-foot setback and would need a Variance for any type of addition. 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 addition would need to be removed. The property could continue to be used as a single-family home. According to the plans, the garage does not contain a kitchen. If it did, the kitchen would also have to be removed, as the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) does not currently allow accessory dwelling units inside of detached structures on lots undersized for the zone district. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request is for an 84% reduction from Code requirements. The applicant is asking for a maximum of a 42-foot variance from the north property line and 39 feet from the west property line. The overall proposed structure setback is substantial, but the building addition is actually located approximately 22 feet from the west property line. Staff found that allowing the addition to continue to be used at this location is not substantial. It has been located at this site since 2012. There have been no public comments or concerns associated with this addition location as of 2012. 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 impact to view corridors, drainage, migration corridors, etc.). Since the addition has been built for four years without any complaints or documented adverse impacts, staff believes the situation has caused no detriment to nearby properties. Several other structures in the neighborhood are legally non-conforming, as they are also located within the 50-foot setbacks. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; The Larimer county Department of Health and Environment commented on this application and will require a pumper check list to verify the existing septic system is large enough to accommodate four bedrooms. If not, a septic remodel permit will be required. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 September 13, 2016 Staff found the applicant purchased the property in 2011 and built the addition in 2012-2013. A county building permit was not applied for at this time. If the applicant had applied for a permit, the requirement of a variance and septic inspection, as well as additional information for the garage conversion, would have been made known at that time. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found any building addition on this property would need an approved variance because the existing building is located entirely within the 50-foot setback. 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 to the Estes Valley. It is not common to have structures located entirely within a required setback. 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. No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. A setback variance would be the least deviation from Code to allow the addition to continue to be located at this site. 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 this approval that a building permit/as- built permit be applied for with Larimer County. This will ensure the structure was built to building code requirements. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval, with one condition listed below. Staff and Member Discussion There was discussion regarding penalties for construction without a variance and building permit. It was determined if the variance were denied, the addition would have to be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 September 13, 2016 removed. Planner Gonzales stated there will be fees associated with obtaining the building permit and with the septic system requirements. Due to the site location, staff cannot require the applicant to connect to a sewer system. Public Comment John Bruell/applicant thanked staff for being so helpful in the process. He purchased the property in 2012, and was not aware of some of the difficulties they are dealing with now. The property was purchased as a two-bedroom home. Prior to purchase, there were discussions with a designer and builder regarding adding an addition, and both did not recommend proceeding with the addition. After purchasing the property, it was used as a long-term rental. He stated he did not add living space as bedrooms in the garage, he just added living space. The windows in the converted garage are not egress windows, so it is not a room approved for sleeping. The current issues with the home are making it difficult to sell the property. He is working with the County building department to get the necessary permits for the unpermitted work, as well as closing out other permits from the previous owners. Mr. Bruell apologized for doing work without permits. Public comment closed. Member comments included but were not limited to: septic is the biggest issue; no negative visual impacts for the adjacent property owners; work completed without permits is not condoned, but the distance to the neighbors makes it an easier decision; the history of the home and the efforts to correct the problems was appreciated. Mr. Bruell commented that he felt somewhat victimized as he inherited some of the issues without the permits. Staff comments included clarification that the variance request was the only real issue before the Board. The Board can apply conditions of approval, but they have to be directly related to the variance request. The applicant will have to work with Larimer County regarding the septic system, building permits, and use of the property. Condition of Approval 1. A County building permit/as-built permit shall be applied for within three (3) months of Variance approval. If the building permit/as-built permit is not subsequently issued by the county, the Variance shall become null and void. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the variance request with the findings and condition recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-0 with Member Moreau absent. Chair Lynch called a five-minute recess at 9:50 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 a.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 September 13, 2016 5. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 1665 HIGHWAY 66, LAZY B RANCH & WRANGLERS VARIANCE REQUEST Director Hunt advised the Board of two observations for the benefit of the Board and the Public: (1) A variance review is a narrow set of criteria, and this variance follows the same criteria as any other variance request. The Board does not have review authority of the proposed use, placement of roads, entrance, or loading dock area. If you find the variance is not warranted for reasons determined by the criteria for variances, the Board could vote to deny the request. The Special Review was approved by the Town Board with a condition of approval being this variance approval. It would not be appropriate under state law to have the Town Board decision influence the Board of Adjustment’s decision. (2) Director Hunt stated there is a significant amount of public interest in this matter. His observation is there will be individuals who want to provide public comment. Typically, the public comment period would be only for the variance. He stated there are some views today that could be expressed that are not strictly for the variance criteria. It is the Chair’s prerogative to either allow or disallow the content matter for public comment, to make sure it is relevant to the application. Chair Lynch stated he will recommend holding public comments to three minutes each, without elaborating on issues unrelated to the variance. Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff the staff report. The variance is from EVDC Section 7.11.O.2.b which requires loading areas be setback 110-feet from the centerline of street centers. The variance request is to allow a 61.6-foot loading area setback from the centerline of Mills Drive. The property is zoned A–Accommodations. Town Board approved a development plan for this project on July 26, 2016, with a condition of approval being approval of this variance request. He stated the property containing the Lazy B Ranch & Wranglers project is approximately five acres of a larger 30-acre parcel. The parcels to the south of the proposed project are zoned A-1–Accommodations, and contain single-family dwellings, while the property to the east is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying. Planner Gonzales stated the Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this request. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper, the application was routed to affected agencies, and adjacent property owners were notified. No major comments/concerns were received by reviewing agencies. He stated staff received several public comments in regards to this variance. All public comments were opposed to the variance, for reasons including but not limited to: heavy truck traffic, non-local property owners desiring economic gain, traffic noise, etc. Planner Gonzales stated the proposed building encroaches slightly into the setback, which was approved with the Special Review. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the development area is approximately five (5) acres in size and zoned A–Accommodations. The setback requirements for this area are 15 feet from the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 September 13, 2016 front property line for the building location, and 110 feet from the centerline of the street for the loading area location. Applying the 110-foot loading area setback requirement and 50-foot wetland setback requirement at this specific location would leave approximately 50-feet for the loading area. The applicant has expressed in their Statement of Intent that the logical placement of the loading area for deliveries is adjacent to the proposed parking lot and situated at the entrance of the kitchen. 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 loading area would need to be relocated on the site. With the approved development plan, the loading area would need to be moved to the north end of the building, which would require a redesign of the structure. The kitchen was placed near Mills Drive to have loading access close to the road, which is a typical orientation for a building’s loading area for accessibility reasons. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requires a loading area which the applicants stated cannot be placed anywhere else along the building. b. Whether the variance is substantial; The Variance request is for a 56% reduction from Code requirements. Staff finds this request is substantial. The applicant has proposed to mitigate potential effects by landscaping the area south of the loading area, between the building and Mills Drive. 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 be substantially altered with the proposed loading area location. The property is zone A–Accommodations, and the property to the south is zone A-1–Accommodations but is built with residences. Allowing the loading area to be located closer to the centerline of the street than required will have an effect on the residential neighborhood to the south. The proposed street buffer landscaping as well as loading area landscaping will help to mitigate that effort. The applicant has stated the current use of the site is RV storage and campground, and landscaping and screening do not currently exist. The property to the east is a commercial property containing a parking lot with heavy usage, including trucks making deliveries. There is no screening associated with that development. Staff has received no complaints about that operation in regards to screening. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found the variance would not affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8 September 13, 2016 Staff found the requirement for the 110-foot setback was in place when the owner purchased the property. Staff made the applicant aware of this requirement during the development review process. The purpose for placing the loading area at this location was to access the kitchen, utilize the parking lot, and minimize the need for additional site grading or impervious coverage. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found in order to meet Code requirements, the entire building would need to be redesigned. This would be feasible in principle, but it is unclear whether other redesign issues may emerge during that process. The new placement of the loading area may require a redesign of the parking lot as well. The loading space must access the kitchen for deliveries. 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 conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley. This site has several setback issues that are not generally found on all Accommodation lots, such as street setbacks, loading area setbacks, wetland setbacks, etc. These setbacks greatly limit the development potential of the site. The approved building proposal is for up to 750 people. A building of that size is difficult to place on this site. 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. No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. A setback variance would be the least deviation from Code to allow the loading area to continue to be located at this site. 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 found the Board of Adjustment should explore additional screening requirements to further screen the loading area. Neighboring properties are concerned with idling and visual effects. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9 September 13, 2016 Staff and Member Discussion There was discussion regarding the number of trucks at the site at one time, and Planner Gonzales stated there would be only one truck there at a time making deliveries. There is no loading dock proposed, just access from the loading area to the kitchen. There was discussion regarding the size of the parcel containing this project, when the lot was actually about 30 acres in size. Planner Gonzales stated the property owners have contemplated subdividing off this portion of the 30 acre parcel. In order to do so, they would have to meet criteria regarding impervious coverage. Additionally, the north portion of the parcel is used as an RV Park, while the south portion (subject property) is used for overflow RV storage and is not used as heavily. With the wetland to the west, there are limited areas where it would be feasible to subdivide the parcel for development. Planner Gonzales stated Mills Drive is a private road owned by the property owners, but the EVDC does not distinguish between public and private for setback requirements. Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) maintains Mills Drive because it is an access road to the Park offices and Park housing. Planner Gonzales stated the property to the south of Mills Drive was zoned A-1 in 2000, and has 15-foot front setbacks. Most of the homes along this part of Mills Drive were built before 2000. Public Comment Planner Gonzales stated the applicant was not present, but was aware of today’s meeting. Rebecca Urquhart/town resident was concerned about freely granting a substantial variance to facilitate a business. She stated the owners were aware of the setback requirement. The property owners may need to redesign. There is an existing driveway that could be used (off of Highway 66), instead of putting the Lazy B driveway and loading area along Mills Drive. There are reasons setbacks were established, and she stated granting this variance would be inappropriate. Mike Egan/town resident stated the neighbors have always been opposed to this project. He owns property nearby. His company has hired a consultant to address the application. Dave Shirk/planning consultant stated he is representing several property owners on Mills Drive and Spur 66. He was opposed to the variance request, as it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He stated the variance did not comply with the EVDC standards for review. The purpose is to minimize impact on the neighborhood, and this variance would not do so. He asked the Board to only consider the information submitted, which did not include landscaping plan. Director Hunt and Planner Gonzales clarified the development plan included a landscaping plan, which was approved by the Town Board. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10 September 13, 2016 Staff is allowed to provide additional graphics for presentation purposes. Director Hunt stated the presentation today should be considered as part of the testimony before the Board. Planner Gonzales stated the special review included an extensive landscaping plan. This plan was not submitted with the variance application. He provided additional graphics for presentation purposes. The landscaping plan was conditionally approved by the Town Board. Mr. Shirk stated there was adequate space on the 30-acre parcel to relocate the proposed building, and other options on the site would eliminate the need for the variance. He stated there was no practical difficulty associated with setback standard. All properties on the south side of Mills are used as residential, and this change would be substantial. He stated the proposed use is for an event, and the size of the building makes this non-compliant with the proposed use. He stated approval of the loading area would impact the street system, as a turn lane is needed on Mills drive to accommodate the truck traffic. He stated if approved, the hours of operation should be kept to seasonal use. Chair Lynch requested clarification on the use. Director Hunt stated the Town Board approved the Special Review Development Plan, and determined the use was allowed. Planner Gonzales stated Phase I of the project includes a tent for the dining and performance area, and a permanent kitchen. He stated the Special Review Development Plan was conditionally approved, and had not yet received final approval. Jay Vetter/county resident stated the developers have never responded to requests for meetings to discuss other options, and the developer has stated he will comply with what was approved. He stated the proposed loading area would be “right in our front yard”. The improvements to Mills Drive would eliminate mature trees on his property. He desired the applicant to place the entrance off of Spur 66. Mr. Vetter stated it was the developer’s choice to locate the entrance where they did. Planner Gonzales confirmed the Mills Drive entrance was determined by the applicant. If the property is subdivided, having the Mills Drive entrance would eliminate the need for easements across the property. Bryan Gillam/part-owner of Rock Inn stated their deliveries take place on Spur 66. He stated a redesign of the location of the proposed building could still allow a portion of the site to be used for overflow camping. Mr. Gillam stated landscaping was not included in Phase I; however, Planner Gonzales stated there was extensive street buffer landscaping in Phase I, which was conditionally approved by the Town Board. Public comment closed. Staff and Member Discussion Comments included, but were not limited to: the Board is here to review the variance, and have nothing to do with the approved development plan; there could be alternative locations for the entire building; there was not a huge negative impact for the request as RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 11 September 13, 2016 long as it would be landscaped; the street is owned by the property owner; other trucks use the road going to and from RMNP; this variance is no different from other variances. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Poggenpohl) to disapprove the variance request with the findings presented by staff and the motion passed 3-1 with Newsom, Smith, and Poggenpohl voting in favor and Lynch voting against. Moreau was absent. Comments included there were other options available on this property that would not introduce commercial traffic to Mills Drive and have adverse impacts to the neighborhood. 6. REPORTS Director Hunt welcomed Member Poggenpohl as the newest member of the Board, representing the unincorporated Larimer County. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary