Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2018-08-07 Prepared: August 1, 2018 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, August 7, 2018 9:00 a.m. – Board Room Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated July 3, 2018 5. VARIANCE REQUEST: 1571 ST. MORITZ TRAIL, Owners: Jason and Mindy Brown The variance request is to grant alternative 3 foot front and 14 foot rear setbacks in lieu of the established 25-foot minimum setbacks required by the E-1 Estate Zoning District. Staff finds the variances requested are reasonable due to the existing site condition. Staff recomments approval of the requested variance. 6. REPORTS 7. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 3 , 2018 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Rex Poggenpohl, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Wayne Newsom, Pete Smith, John Lynch Attending: Members Newsom, Poggenpohl, Smith, Moreau Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner I Robin Becker, Town Attorney White, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: John Lynch Chair Poggenpohl called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately 35 people in attendance. He introduced the Board Members and staff. 1. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approved the agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-1 with Poggenpohl abstaining. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated June 5, 2018 It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the minutes for June 5, 2018 as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 4. FORMAL APPEAL of Zoning Approval in Connection with Larimer County Building Permit #18-UTL0095, Lot 12, 2101 Dry Gulch Road: Michael Moon, applicant; Greg Cenac, appellant The appellant formally appealed a decision of the staff (Community Development Department) that a Conex storage unit meets the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) criteria to be classified as an “accessory structure.” Appellant asserts that the unit does not meet Code under Sections 1.3.A, 1.3.F, 1.3.M and 1.8. Staff formally responded the appeal by reaffirming the Zoning Approval in connection with the Larimer County Building Permit; said Zoning Approval was originally issued on April 3, 2018, and reissued following further review on June 15, 2018. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail Gazette on June 15, 2018. Public interest is moderate. Staff recommends the Board find that Staff’s determination is correct and the appeal be denied. BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: Hunt answered Moreau’s question, that there is no specific place in the Development Code that addresses aesthetics. The issuance of a permit is one in a multi-layered situation involving approvals with HOA’s and Covenants, however staff doesn’t review or RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 3, 2018 take into account the specifics of Covenants. Attorney White explained that Covenants are a private contract between owners of real property, serving as a function to control the use of property. Typical Convents do contain building use and aesthetics on the use of the property. Our Code does not govern Covenants. They are separate and a private property right that is enforceable by their terms. Basis of original approval was that the unit was not distinguishable from other residential accessory structures under our regulatory Code entitling it to an approval conforming to Zoning. June 15, 30-day appeal period for decisions by staff. The April date was rescinded, a practical step legal under code, to reinstate a new approval date of June 15 to allow the public time to appeal. There was no requirement for Temporary Use Permit by the Planning Department APPELANT COMMENTS: Greg Cenac, 2115 Ridge Road, formally appealed the decision to grant this building permit. A permit allowing the use of a “Cargo Container for Storage” in an Estes Valley Residential Neighborhood is not following the intent of the Code in 11 different sections. Harmonious, Aesthetic or Good Civic design. Neighbors attempted to solve this problem by speaking with the owner, Mr. Moon, to no avail. Mr. Cenac stated that no planning staff members ever checked out the building site. Staff has made the wrong decision and it is up to this Board to overturn that decision. Neighbors complained to owners when the unit first showed up, approximately 3 years ago. Owner promised to move within first couple of months. Every 6 months neighbors were told owner would remove it. County was called in September 2017 and a violation was issued. After six months, it was not removed and owner applied for a permanent building permit. OWNER COMMENTS: Michael Moon, 2101 Ridge Road, reviewed the reason for having of the storage unit and the permitting process taken. He asserted that the container meets all EVDC Codes, and was never meant to be permanent; he just needed go through belongings. He noted that, there has been no mediation or attempt at communication by neighbors in over a year, it was all behind our back and that he tried to handle this in a legal fashion, and to communicate. The Covenants have not been enforced or renewed in 48 years, making them invalid and requested the Board to affirm the Community Development decision. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Those speaking in favor of the Appeal: Betty Hull, 1723 Stone Gate Drive, Mark Lee, 2165 Ridge Road, Mark Thiess, 2120 Ridge Road, 1593 Dry Gulch, Barton Smith 2110 Ridge Road, Linda Langer, 1861 Raven Avenue, stating the following reasons: Covenants trump Code, unintended consequences, dangerous precedent, lack of regard for neighbors, curb appeal, aesthetics, due diligence not done, neighbors not notified John Meissner, 751 Heinz Parkway, stated that there are ways to make storage containers attractive and fit in, and warned of the consequences of disallowing them. BOARD COMMENTS: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 3, 2018 Poggenpohl summarized that this type item should require a Temporary Use Permit, should not be allowed on a permanent basis, intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code should be considered, and a revision Code Statutes as soon as possible. He stated that he is disappointed in County’s building permit process, and there was poor use of Covenants by the neighbors. It was moved and seconded (Moreau./Newsom) to reverse the staff determination regarding the Zoning Approval for Larimer County Building Permit #18-UTIL0095 on Lot 12, 2101 Ridge Road, Estes Park, Colorado, and the interpretations the Estes Valley Development Codes 1.3, 1.6a, 1.8a1, 1.8b1, 5.1n, 5, 5.3.c, 7.1, 7.5, 7.11, 7.13 and 5.2.d, to support this reversal. The motion passed 3-1 with Smith recusing himself. 5. REPORTS-Director Hunt Due to the length of the meeting, there were no reports given. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. ___________________________________ Rex Poggenpohl, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: August 7, 2018, 9:00 a.m.; Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: The applicant requests two (2) Variances from the Estes Valley Development Code. 1. Variance #1: From Section 4.3(C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a fourteen (14) foot rear setback from the west property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District. 2. Variance #2: From Section 4.3(C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a three (3) foot front setback from the east property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District. Staff is recommending approval of this variance. LOCATION: 1571 St. Moritz Trail, Estes Park, CO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 4 amended plat of Windcliff Estates 5th Subdivision, and replat of Lot 41/2 Webster Bighorn Subdivision, a PUD, Larimer County, Colorado. EXISTING ZONING: E-1, Estate Zoning VICINITY AND SITE MAP: See attachments APPLICANT/OWNER: Jamin Rucker/Jason Brown & Mindy Bakker STAFF CONTACT: Brandon Howes & Ross Culbertson, Consulting Town Planners PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Variance request is to grant alternative front and rear setbacks in lieu of the established 25-foot minimum front and rear setbacks required by the E-1 Estate Zoning District. The lot was platted prior to the Town’s rezoning efforts in February 2000, when the Estes Valley Development Code became effective. During this rezoning, the 25-foot side setbacks associated with the E-1 zone district went into effect and created a situation where many lots within the Windcliff subdivision are considered unbuildable, due to the narrowness and steep slope of the lots. Granting this variance request will allow the applicant to build a modest sized home. Several other lots within the Windcliff subdivision have also required variances to the building setback requirements due to narrowness and steep slopes. 1571 St. Moritz Trail., Variance Request Front and Rear Setbacks Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 1 1571 ST. MORITZ TRAIL VARIANCE REQUEST, FRONT & REAR SETBACKS PAGE 2 OF 4 REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also posted a sign on the property. Affected Agencies. The request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. All comments received from affected agencies have been resolved. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with the EVDC, Section 3.6 C., Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW (3.6)(C) 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Special circumstances exist on the property. The property contains 0.365 acres and is zoned E-1, Estate. The established E-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre and 25-foot side setbacks from all property lines (front, sides, and rear). This lot is one of the narrower lots within the Windcliff subdivision and the location of St. Mortiz Trail further complicates the access to this site. In this area, St. Moritz Trail is located east of the right-of-way, and therefore further east from the property line. Because of the steep slope in this area, the driveway and home need to be placed as close as possible to the eastern property line. The applicant states this is the best location to site the proposed home because of the driveway difficulties associated with this lot. By placing the home in this location, the driveway is accessible. However, the grades will still be excessive at up to 12%, which is within acceptable grade limits by the Town code. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: There is limited beneficial use of the property under the current conditions. The north side of the lot is very narrow with the existing building setbacks and it would be difficult to fit even a modest sized home within the prescribed building setbacks. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variances are considered substantial. However, allowing the decrease in setback widths from 25-feet to 14-feet on the west and 3-feet on the east side are logical and reasonable to remedy the challenging site conditions. Staff understands that when the E-1 zoning was established in 2000 over the entire neighborhood, it potentially created hardships on existing properties by setting criteria for larger lot areas and larger setbacks. 2 1571 ST. MORITZ TRAIL VARIANCE REQUEST, FRONT & REAR SETBACKS PAGE 3 OF 4 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 Finding: Staff does not find that the character of the neighborhood would be altered, and there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties with approval of the proposed variance. A home in this location would be consistent with other properties in the Windcliff subdivision. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. Although the owner is simultaneously applying for vacation of the 10ft utility easement on the east side of the property. The utility companies have signed off on this request as there are no utilities currently located within this utility easement. In addition, utility locates were performed for the site and utilities for this proposed home will be pulled from the existing utility lines within Eiger Trail, which lies to the west of this property. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available to the public. The current owner purchased the property in 2018 and is currently aware of this requirement. However, if this variance is not granted it is likely that any future owner will have difficulty locating a similar residential structure due to the zoning setback constraints. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is no alternative method or zoning process available that would allow construction of the proposed single family home on this site. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: There is no process that could provide a lesser deviation than the proposed variance to allow the site to be accessed in a reasonable manner. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment. Staff finds the variances requested are reasonable due to the existing site condition and do not foresee the need for additional conditions. The BOA is welcomed to review and consider additional conditions as needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. 3 1571 ST. MORITZ TRAIL VARIANCE REQUEST, FRONT & REAR SETBACKS PAGE 4 OF 4 SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE the following variances, allowing a fourteen (14) foot rear setback, along the west side of the property and a three (3) foot setback on the east side of the property at 1571 St. Moritz Trail, Estes Park, with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report. I move to DENY the requested variances with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !EAGL ECL I F F DRWIN D C LIFF DR ZERMAT T T RL SAINT MO RIT Z T RL3125 3243 3245 3247 3101 3175 1521 1531 1541 1551 1561 1680 1695 1641 1645 1637 1637 3225 7303 This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.±1571 St. Moritz Trail Printed: 8/1/2018Created By: Brittany Hathaway 0 80 160Feet 1 in = 160 ft 13 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 12