Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-10-04 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 4, 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 Newsom, Smith, Moreau, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Chair Lynch Vice-Chair Newsom 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 None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated September 13, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Poggenpohl) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent, and Member Moreau abstaining. 3. UNIT 1147, STONE BRIDGE ESTATES CONDOMINIUMS; 1147 FISH CREEK ROAD; WILSON RESIDENCE VARIANCE Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Charles and Nancy Wilson, requested a variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.1.a(1), which requires all buildings and accessory structures be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally from the annual high- water mark of stream corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. The request is to encroach into the existing 30-foot setback to allow construction of a new home. The defined bank of the stream will be changing with the redesign of Fish Creek, as shown in the Fish Creek Public Infrastructure Project. The distance from the property line to the riverbank will be more than 30 feet once the stream is redesigned. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 4, 2016 Planner Gonzales stated approval of the variance would allow a setback of 10.7 feet from the current Fish Creek riverbank. He stated the former dwelling was destroyed in the 2013 flood, and the applicant desires to rebuild on the lot, moving the structure further east than the previous structure. The former dwelling was not in the river/stream setback at the time it was built. Following the flood, Fish Creek migrated to the east, which in turn shifted the setback to the east. The Fish Creek Public Infrastructure Project is scheduled for completion in September 2017. While the 90% design plan was provided in the meeting materials, the 100% design is now available, and no changes have been made at this location from the 90% plan. Planner Gonzales stated a legal notice was published in the local newspaper, and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners and affected agencies. Comments were received from Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. No public comments were received. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the previous home located at 1147 Fish Creek Road was not built within the 30-foot stream corridor setback. During the flood event of 2013, Fish Creek shifted to the east, which also shifted the setback requirement. The shift was approximately 20-25 feet east. The footprint location for rebuilding the home at this address is now greatly affected by the newly established setback. Strict compliance with Code standards would prevent the home to be rebuilt at this address, even though the home is proposed to be built farther east than the previous home. The new creek alignment associated with the Fish Creek Road Public Infrastructure Project is proposed to be completed by September of 2017. This would eliminate the need for a setback Variance, as the setback will again shift westward towards the original Fish Creek alignment. Staff believes this Variance would be a “temporary Variance” as the encroachment would only take place until the new alignment is complete. The special circumstance found at this property is unique to the Estes Valley. The home lost during the 2013 flood was the only structure deemed a total loss. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found building the same size of home as the previous one outside of the current stream corridor setback would not be practical. It would involve eliminating the driveway. The post-flood creek alignment reduces the buildable RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 4, 2016 area by approximately 20-25 feet. The applicant has proposed moving the structure farther east than the previous building. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance is substantial in that it would allow a building to encroach up to 80% into the setback. Since the setback is deemed temporary, Staff does not feel the request is substantial in developmental impacts. The applicant has proposed flood mitigation efforts such as; designing the basement floor to be 1-foot above the Base Flood Elevation level as well as sinking the west foundation wall into the bedrock and other basement foundation walls being placed on piers. The footprint of the proposed home is within the current FEMA floodplain boundaries and will require a floodplain development permit prior to issuance of a building permit. It is uncertain whether the building will be within the remapped 100-year floodplain, which will not be finalized until 2017. 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 with this proposal. The previous home was built farther west from this proposal. This Variance would allow the home to be rebuilt on the property at the requested location. The adjacent property to the south is currently within the 30- foot setback as well. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found approval 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 home was built in 2011 and was located entirely outside of the 30-foot stream corridor setback. Post-flood, the setback shifted and created a more difficult site to build on. The owner could not have foreseen this situation taking place. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found building the exact home footprint outside of the current setback is not possible without a Variance. The driveway would need to be eliminated and the home would not be consistent with the neighborhood. A Variance is the only method available to mitigate this predicament. 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. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 October 4, 2016 Staff found conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley. They are very specific to this property, size, and orientation. 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 had no recommended conditions of approval. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval, with no conditions. Staff and Member Discussion Member Poggenpohl inquired as to whether there may be room to move the dwelling even further to the east. Planner Gonzales stated if the dwelling was moved further east, the driveway would not be code compliant, and the project would be inconsistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Member Moreau inquired if the Town would be liable if the Board approved the variance, the home was built, and a future flood washed away the home again. Planner Gonzales stated an approved floodplain permit would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit; therefore, the property owner would be responsible for any damages caused by future flooding. Public Comment Mike Olson/applicant has been working with the property owners for approximately a year and a half trying to design the home and stay out of the setback. The homeowners are anxious to rebuild. He has met with structural engineers to design the piers to withstand any future flooding. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 October 4, 2016 Barbara May/HOA President for Stone Bridge stated the neighbors received the notice, and all are supportive of the variance request. Public comment closed. Staff and Member Discussion Member Poggenpohl stated he was interested in being able to help anyone that was directly affected by the 2013 flood. Conditions of Approval None. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-0 with Member Lynch absent. 4. REPORTS A. Director Hunt reported Member Poggenpohl expressed an interest in training for Board of Adjustment members, or Board membership in general. He is looking into the options and will get information to the Members soon. He stated staff could also benefit from additional training. He is aware of an on-site training by the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), and if Estes Park were chosen as a training site, other localities would be invited. B. Director Hunt reported Planner Gonzales was promoted from Planner I to Planner II. The department will move forward with hiring someone for the Planner I position once the 2017 budget is approved and adopted. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:19 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary