Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2014-11-04RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 4, 2014 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom, Pete Smith, and Don Darling Attending:Chair Lynch, Members Moreau, Newsom, Smith, and Darling Also Attending:Senior Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:None 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. Member Darling is the newest member of the Board, residing outside the Town limits in the Windcliff area. His expertise in construction will make him a valuable asset to the Board of Adjustment. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were two people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the October 7, 2014 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau)to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0, with Member Darling abstaining. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1740 HUMMINGBIRD LANE. Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property is located in the High Drive area, and was developed in the 1930s as a summer cabin. The lot is zoned E-1–Estate, which has a one acre minimum lot size. This lot is approximately ¼ acre. Planner Shirk explained the how lot size related to setbacks; larger lot, larger setbacks. The E-1 district has a minimum setback from all property lines of 25 feet. The lot being reviewed today is only 45 feet wide, and very undersized for the zone district. Due to the E-1 zoning, any improvements require a variance. Planner Shirk stated a variance on this property was approved is 2003; however, the property owner at that time never followed through with the project, and the approval became null and void. The new property owner would like to make some improvements to the existing single-family dwelling. The improvements would include an addition to the south, with a new deck to the south of the new addition. The application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. The next door neighbor shared concerns about the possibility of having to connect to the sewer main. He spoke with UTSD and the concern was resolved. Planner Shirk stated the existing structure has a septic system and is connected to the Hondius water system. The water system serves the majority of the High Drive area; the Town provides the water, and the Hondius system distributes it. It is not a year-round system. Planner Shirk stated if the septic system was not adequate for the proposed improvements, the property owner would be required to connect to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District’s sewer lines. The property owner will work with the Larimer County Health Department to ensure compliance with the septic issue. Staff Findings RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 November 4, 2014 1. Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions exist relating to lot size and width. The existing house was built before setbacks were established. With present setback requirements, the entire house is considered non-conforming. 2. In determining practical difficulty, staff finds the following: a. Residential use may continue. The current 547 square foot structure, built in 1935, is small relative to today’s standards and when compared with the surrounding neighborhood, which has an average size of 923 square feet. b. The variance is not substantial. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The proposed addition is generally consistent with the size and character of surrounding homes. d. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. The applicant purchased the property in 2005, after the adoption of the current setback standards. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance, staff finds the existing house is entirely nonconforming to setback standards; therefore, it is impossible to do any expansion without a variance. The only other option for the applicant is to purchase an adjacent property, combine both lots, and rebuild to meet setbacks. 3. Staff finds the conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general and recurrent in nature. 4. Staff finds the variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. 5. Staff finds the variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. Staff finds residential uses are permitted in the E-1–Estate zone district. 7. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor verify building placement. Staff and Member Discussion None. Public Comment Steve Lane/applicant representative stated if the setbacks were sized for this particular lot, they would be 10 feet instead of the required 25 feet. He stated if the previous owner would have followed through with the proposed project (in 2005), it would have triggered a requirement to connect to the sewer system. The current proposed plan is to add a bedroom, which will not increase the use of the septic system. He stated the property owner desires to have additional square footage for summer use. Richard Jensen/County resident was not opposed to the variance. He was in attendance to gain a better understanding of the request. He stated the improvements would still be in character with the neighborhood. Board and Staff Discussion None. Conditions of Approval 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes, approved site plan, and building plans. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a letter from the Hondius Water System stating there is adequate water supply to the proposed addition. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain any necessary acquisition of sewer easement(s) and shall connect to the sewer or receive approval of the Larimer County Health Department for the current septic system. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall notify the Larimer County Health Department regarding abandonment of the existing septic system. RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 November 4, 2014 5. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 6. Compliance with email from Larimer County Chief Building Official dated October 22, 2014. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom)to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0. 4. REPORTS A. Planner Shirk reported on the Sombrero Ranch variance. The applicant is moving forward and will begin hauling this week. All the issues with the various agencies, associations, property owners, etc. have been resolved. He stated the project has been scaled down. There is more immediate repair work than originally thought, and some of the material to be stockpiled will now be taken directly to the repair sites. The end result for the stockpile at Sombrero Ranch will be approximately one acre in size rather than two acres, and the new road will not be needed because fewer trucks will be going onto the property. B. Planner Shirk shared information relating to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). To provide continuing education to the Board, he reviewed the purpose of setbacks, which are the most common reason for a variance request. The purpose of setbacks is to ensure the structures are built on the property and not over the property line. Setbacks ensure dwellings are in the right place, and allow for some perimeters around the property lines for utilities, fire protection, emergency vehicle access, and privacy. Other purposes are to allow for adequate air and light circulation. Lastly, setbacks are established for aesthetics and to maintain character in neighborhoods. C. Planner Shirk explained the process for Staff-Level Minor Modifications. Staff is allowed to grant minor modifications to certain development standards up to 10% of the setback requirement. Sometimes there are no issues, other times the modification is difficult and uncomfortable, depending on the density of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff has begun sending neighbor notices for all staff-level reviews. If there are objections, staff can upgrade the level of review to a Board review. This notification practice is fairly recent, and was put in place to be more transparent with adjacent property owners. D. Planner Shirk reported on a possible policy concerning deck replacements. He stated many decks were originally permitted prior to the EVDC and current setback requirements. If the property owner desires to replace the existing deck, a variance is required; no grandfathering is allowed. Staff asked for feedback on a proposed policy to consider those deck situations as normal repair and maintenance, which would not require a variance. In order for the deck to qualify for the variance waiver, it would need to have been permitted when originally built. Decks built without permits, within the setbacks, would not qualify for the variance waiver. Instead, these situations could be handled similar to minor modifications, where the neighbors would be notified. If no objections were received, staff would move forward with a staff-level review. If objections were received, the application would move to the Board of Adjustment for review. The proposed policy for permitted decks would save applicants the $500 fee, in addition to a six-week waiting period. Member Moreau inquired about the requirement of a variance only if it was more than a certain percentage into the setback. Planner Shirk stated decks are allowed up to 30% into the setback, if constructed at grade. Fire codes also come into play with structures near property lines. Member Newsom was in favor of the policy. Planner Shirk clarified this policy would not apply if the variance request encroached into a utility easement. He would work on a draft policy and bring it to the Board in early 2015. E. Planner Shirk explained the definition of a building envelope, stating it is lines drawn on a plat that establishes setbacks for that particular parcel. Structures can only be built within those lines, or building envelope. Building envelopes cannot be granted variances, because they are part of the plat, rather than setbacks required in the development code. Changes to building envelopes require an amended plat, which is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Recommendations are made by the Planning RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 November 4, 2014 Commission to either the Town Board or the County Commission, depending on the location of the parcel. As an example, Thunder Mountain Subdivision established building envelopes when the subdivision was originally created. Those envelopes have since been vacated, and the standard zoning regulations now apply. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:33 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary