Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-11-01 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 1, 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, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Newsom 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 None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated October 4, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL; 3542 ASPEN VALLEY ROAD; YOUNG RESIDENCE VARIANCE Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 50-foot setbacks on all sides in the RE-1–Rural Estate zone district. The request is to allow a 21.8 foot front setback for construction of a proposed attached garage. The existing dwelling was built in the 1980s, is located near the south central part of the lot, and encroaches a small amount into the setback. At the time it was built, it was in compliance with the zone district standards. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No significant RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 November 1, 2016 agency comments were received. One comment was received from an adjacent property owner, who had no opposition to the proposed variance. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the lot size of 2.7 acres is substantially undersized for the 10- acre minimum lot size for the RE-1 zone district. The reason for the proposed garage location is to avoid steep grades to the east and west. Because the existing home entrance faces west, the applicant states having the garage on the west side would affect the main entrance and not be practical. Staff found the proposed location was feasible and practical, as was the area directly east of the home. Staff determined the slope was not excessive enough to deter development. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the existing home and garage could be used without adding an addition to the building. While it may not be practical to expand towards the west, the east side of the home offers a practical location which may require a variance but to a much lesser degree than the proposed location. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request is not substantial in regards to the physical location of the addition. The deviation from Code standards would be 43% deviation, which would 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 single-family character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. Staff found all adjacent properties have homes and small structures built outside the specific zone district setbacks. The subject property is the only one with an existing building located within the setback. 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 in the 1980s when it was zone E-Estate. The RE-1 zone district setback requirements were not in effect until 2000. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 November 1, 2016 A Variance is the only method available to mitigate this predicament. Staff feels an alternative location may be achieved, whether that be with an attached addition or detached structure. 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 general in nature. While the slope to the west drops off significantly, there is an area to the east that could be developed. 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. Staff found the new addition aims to make a practical decision in the placement of the building, but staff feels there are additional locations that could potentially require less of a variance or no variance at all. This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the proposal, but other options seem to exist. 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 approval; therefore, no conditions are recommended at this time. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended disapproval. There is a deck on the east side that may need to be altered, and exploring another location would take more thought and design work, but an alternate location on the east side may or may not require a variance. Staff determined there are other locations on the site are buildable. Staff recommended denial, so no conditions would apply. Staff and Member Discussion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 November 1, 2016 Comments included but were not limited to: the setbacks were 30 feet when the home was built; the nearest neighbor is 600 feet away; disagreement with staff that the east side was buildable; there is room on the west side; the existing garage could be expanded to accommodate the concerns of the owner without having to do such a large addition; concern that the addition may contain an area for accommodations; a detached garage could be built on the level area in front of the house; the proposed encroachment would be approximately nine feet into the setback if the previous 30-foot setback was still in effect. Public Comment Steve Lane/applicant representative stated the roof of the proposed garage may slightly impede on the second-floor windows. Attic space is planned for above the proposed garage. For the size of the vehicles the property owner wants to store in the garage, and being able to provide adequate access, the proposed location was the most practical. He stated there is no visual impact to any adjacent property owners. The current property owner tried to buy additional property to square off the lot, but they were unable to close the deal. The existing garage will be incorporated into the new garage, and no additional water service is planned. Peggy Young/applicant stated the water storage tank is on east side, making construction in that area not feasible. Public comment closed. Staff and Member Discussion None It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request, adding a requirement for a registered land surveyor to submit a setback certificate prior to pouring the foundation and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. 4. LOT 10, MOUNT VIEW PARK, AND THE EAST PORTIONS OF METES & BOUNDS PARCELS 2, 3, & 4, IMMEDIATELY WST OF LOT 10, MOUNT VIEW PARK: 819 BIG HORN DRIVE; HARMONY FOUNDATION VARIANCE Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance to EVDC Section 4.3, table 4-2 to allow two newly-created lots to be 0.74 acres and 0.51 acres in size, in lieu of the one-acre minimum lot size required in the E-1–Estate zone district. The variance is the first part of a larger package that includes a Resubdivision and Annexation into town limits. Planner Gonzales stated a portion of the subject area is in town limits, and a portion is outside the town limits. The property was illegally subdivided many years ago, and current owner wants to get the plat record cleaned up. The existing dwelling was built over the illegal lots, and it also straddles the Town/County border. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 November 1, 2016 Resubdivision application proposes creating four legal lots from the illegal lots; however, the new configuration would make proposed Lots 3 and 4 undersized for the E-1 zone district. The existing illegal lots are across jurisdictional boundaries, and the proposed new lots would clear up this issue. The proposed Lot 1 would change from an unbuildable lot to a buildable one, which could create some new development. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No significant agency comments were received. No neighbor comments were received. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found there are currently six illegally subdivided parcels, and one existing building straddles two parcels and also the Town/County jurisdictional boundary. A proposed Resubdivision will create four legally non-conforming lots, two of which will be undersized for the zone district, which is the reason for the variance request. Staff found the current zone district is not aligned with the size of the lots in this area, which poses some difficulty with developing the sites. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found there are cross-jurisdictional boundaries in this area. Because the existing Harmony Foundation building is located within two jurisdictions, making repairs and maintenance extremely difficult. A non-conforming building may not expand or be altered in a way that extends the non-conformity. Staff found it impractical to continue in this situation. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request is substantial, with proposed Lot 4 representing a 16% variance and proposed Lot 5 a 42% variance. The end result of the two applications remedies several problems that the Board of Adjustment should weigh into their decision: (1) illegal subdivisions are being remedied by resubdividing and platting area; and (2) cross-jurisdictional problems are being fixed with the Resubdivision and one lot is increasing in size and moving towards conformance with the one-acre minimum lot size. 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. Granting the variance allows a complicated land use issue to be resolved. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 November 1, 2016 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 lot size and setbacks. This situation is very uncommon in the Estes Valley. 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 proposed lot arrangement. An alternative to remedy the multiple lot lines that cross the Harmony Foundation building would be to grant several easements across the parcels. However, if that method was chosen, the illegal non-conforming parcels would remain as such. 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 very unique and are not common in the Estes Valley. Rarely are there situations in which three parcel lines cross over one building and two jurisdictions. 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 there are currently five legally non-conforming parcels subject to the Resubdivision plat. The end result will be four legal lots. The Variance and Resubdivision applications are decreasing the number of total lots. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found the variance will represent the least deviation from the Code. 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. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 November 1, 2016 Staff and Member Discussion Planner Gonzales stated following review of the Resubdivision’s preliminary plat, there are other structures that cross property lines. Easements will be required for these structures to remain. Member Poggenpohl stated there was a stairway that seemed to be located across two property lines, one of which was a parcel not subject to the Resubdivision. He suggested adding a condition of approval requesting removal of that staircase, as it appeared to be non-essential. Director Hunt stated rather than make the removal of the staircase a condition of the variance approval, it would be more appropriate for staff to pass the suggestion on to any future boards hearing applications related to this property. For the record, Member Poggenpohl found those issues and requested resolution during future hearings regarding this property. Public Comment Joe Coop/applicant representative stated this has been a very difficult project. The property was donated to the Harmony Foundation from the Kingstone Foundation, and the issues were known at the time of purchase. The access and utility easement will continue through the property, as it serves the property to the north. It was moved and second (Poggenpohl/Moreau) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions as presented by staff and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. 5. REPORTS Director Hunt reported training for Board of Adjustment members will be provided after the first of the year. Member Poggenpohl stated he realized staff currently has a heavy workload, and he was in favor of delaying the training opportunities. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary