Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2014-10-07 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7, 2014 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Moreau and Newsom Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Smith and one vacant position Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were three people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the September 9, 2014 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0, with one absent and one vacant position. 3. RIVERS EDGE CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT 12; 1605 ZIOLA COURT #12 Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. This request is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which sets a minimum building and structure setback distance of 15 feet in the A-1–Accommodations zone district. The applicant requests to encroach approximately five feet into the side setback to replace a deck that was not legally permitted, and destroyed by the 2013 flood event. Planner Kleisler explained the circumstances around reconstruction of nonconforming structures destroyed by flood, fire, etc. Because the deck was not legally permitted, those exceptions do not apply. Planner Kleisler stated the EVDC establishes a 50-foot river corridor setback for all buildings and accessory structures. The location of the proposed deck is precisely 50 feet from the annual high water mark of Fall River. River setbacks are intended in part to preserve wildlife corridors and habitat and are required to be unobstructed from the ground to the sky. At this point, we do not know the extent of future regulatory floodplain maps as a result of the 2013 flood event. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 7, 2014 Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant concerns were expressed. He stated when the units were designed, there was a five foot distance between the property lines and utility easements. The development was built in compliance with the 30-foot river setbacks in effect at the time of construction. During the 2013 event, many structures along the rivers were undamaged because of the current 50-foot setback requirement. Planner Kleisler stated there were no other units in this development with similar decks. Staff Findings 1. Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions do not exist. The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the Rivers Edge development plan in April, 2004. This planned development consisted of 12 residential/accommodations units designed to meet the setback requirements of the A-1 zone district. The site is adjacent to Fall River and now requires a 50-foot setback from the annual high water mark. The applicant’s site plan states that the proposed deck replacement would be exactly 50 feet from the high water mark, making an extension to the north not possible. 2. In determining practical difficulty, staff finds: a. Residential use may continue and the existing deck may continue to be utilized. b. The variance is not substantial. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. However, the extension would not be consistent with other end units in the Rivers Edge development. d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. The location of the proposed deck will directly abut a public utility easement. The proposed deck will limit access along the side of the property by requiring residents and grounds keepers to travel along the public utility easement. e. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the home in 2010, after the adoption of the current setback standards. f. A variance is the only option to extend the existing deck in any location due to the side setback and river setback. 3. The EVDC requires “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 finds the conditions as submitted in this variance petition are general and recurrent in nature. 4. The EVDC requires “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 finds the variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 7, 2014 5. Staff finds the existing deck may still be utilized. If authorized, a variance would represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment 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 finds residential and accommodations uses are permitted in the A-1– Accommodations zone district. 7. In granting such variances, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff commented should the variance be obtained, staff could verify the location of the deck without a surveyor certificate. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended denial of the variance request. Board and Staff Discussion Planner Kleisler clarified the existing deck was permitted. The deck extension destroyed by the flood was not permitted. The applicant is requesting to replace the portion of the deck that was not permitted. Public Comment Jes Reetz/applicant representative stated Unit 12 was constructed in 2005-2006. The original owner put on the deck extension in question. That owner was granted permission by the condo association, and built the deck without applying for or receiving a building permit. The current owner purchased the property in 2010, thinking everything was in order. Following the flood, the contractor hired to rebuild the deck discovered the extension had not been permitted. At that time, it was determined the extension had been built in the setback. Mr. Reetz stated the deck has a natural screen/buffer to the east, and has received written support from the neighbor on the east side. Concerning the effect on the delivery of public services, Mr. Reetz stated one corner of the proposed replacement would abut the public utility easement. He stated the deck was destroyed due to trees that fell and traveled downstream, hitting the deck. Those trees have since been removed and the bank has been armored for future flood events. He stated the previous 30-foot setback requirement was grandfathered in when this development was originally approved. Jerome Lauer/applicant shared what happened during the flood, and the revelation of finding out there was no building permit. He stated the risk of future damage is minimal. The neighbors to the east are supportive of the deck replacement. Public comment closed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 October 7, 2014 It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance request with the condition the property be surveyed to ensure the replacement deck does not encroach further than what is requested, the deck does not encroach into the utility easement, and all necessary permits are obtained; the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacant position. 4. LOT 9, MOUNT VIEW PARK, 250 Granite Lane Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow a 19-foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot required side setback in the E-1–Estate zone district. The purpose of the variance is to enclose the area below an existing deck to convert that area to a garage. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance for a new covered deck in November, 2010. The new property owner wishes to enclose the area underneath this deck. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. There were no significant issues addressed with this variance request. Planner Kleisler stated the lot size is inadequate for the E-1 zone district, being less than one-half acre in a zone district with a one-acre minimum lot size. If zoned for the lot size, the proposed enclosure would most likely meet the setback requirements. He explained the building footprint would not change, and the structure was just over one hundred feet from the easternmost neighbor. The applicant hired a contractor to enclose the garage, not knowing it was in the setback, and also not knowing a building permit was required. Construction began on the project prior to the application being submitted, but has been halted until a final outcome is decided by the Board. Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist. Staff finds the property is zoned E-1– Estate, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. The 25-foot setbacks are intended for one-acre lots. This lot is .34 acres, which is closer to the ½ acre E-Estate zone district, which has a side-yard setback requirement of ten feet. The house was built in 1977, before adoption of the EVDC. Portions of the existing house are within the setbacks. At the time of construction, the property was zone R-2–Multiple Family. The minimum required setbacks from all property lines were ten feet. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”, staff finds: a. The existing single-family use can continue without enclosing the carport. b. The variance is not substantial. Enclosing the area below the deck would not expand the overall building footprint. The variance would have the least overall impact on the site and the neighborhood. 110 feet of separation from structure to structure towards the east would be retained, as well as 170 feet of separation from structure to structure towards the southeast. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 October 7, 2014 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 finds the single-family character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to view corridors, drainage, migration corridors, etc). d. Staff finds the approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as utility lines, drainage, or roads. e. The applicant purchased the property in the spring of 2014, and was unaware of either the setback requirement or the previous variance. The applicant hired a local contractor to perform the work. This contractor did not apply for a building permit. This issue was brought to the attention of the Division of Building Safety, who issued a Stop Work Order, pending outcome of the variance request. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance, staff finds a garage could be built that complies with the 25-foot setbacks, though locating a building to meet setback requirements would result in greater overall site disturbance. 3. Staff finds enclosing the area below the deck would have the least overall impact on the site and the neighborhood. 4. Staff has no recommended conditions of approval. Because the enclosure would not expand the building footprint, there is no need for a surveyor certificate. Public Comment Janice Whitmore/applicant was available to answer questions. She state was unaware of the variance requirement, and assumed the contractor would take care of any necessary permits. Public comment closed. Board and Staff Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the variance request and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy. 5. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler provided an update to the Board concerning the variance approval for the Ferris wheel at the Stanley Hotel over the July 4th weekend. The event was monitored, and no complaints were received relating to the Ferris wheel. There was a complaint about the parking situation. Town Attorney White has recommended not requiring future variances for a Ferris wheel over the height limit. B. Planner Kleisler invited the Board members to attend the Joint Work Session with the Town Board, Planning Commission, and County Commission. The meeting will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 October 7, 2014 held Wednesday, October 15th, at the museum. He reported the meeting agenda included reviewing possible code amendments for mobile food vending, changes to attainable housing criteria, and assembly space for weddings and other large gatherings. Also, an update on the modernization of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan would be provided. C. Planner Kleisler reported there would be a meeting in November, with one item on the agenda. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary