Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2019-02-05 Prepared: January 31, 2019 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, February 5, 2019 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 Approval of minutes dated December 4, 2018 5. VARIANCE REQUEST: 1545 Hummingbird Drive, owner: Donald and Kathy Townsend Continued to March 5, 2019 meeting 6. VARIANCE REQUEST: 1711 Mills Drive, owner: Jay and Maureen Vetter Variance to EVDC Section 4.4.B, Table 4-5, side setback of 15 feet 7. REPORTS 8. 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 December 4, 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 Moreau, Newsom, Smith, Lynch Also Attending: Senior Planner Woeber, Planner I Robin Becker, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None Chair Poggenpohl called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were 7 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 5-0. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated November 6, 2018 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the minutes for November 6, 2018 as presented and the motion passed 4-0, with Poggenpohl abstaining. 3. 800 MacGregor Avenue, Black Canyon Inn Planner Becker reviewed the variance request from Section 5.2.D.4, stating that it entails an 11,900 square foot building which is 10,900 square feet over the allowed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area permitted in for an accessory use. The Planning Commission approved the Development Plan on November 13, with a condition of this variance approval. A late public comment was received, but was mostly related to the Development Plan. Staff and Board Member Discussion: Becker explained that the applicant wasn’t told of the use by right requirement until half way through the application process, which is why this went to the Planning Commission (PC) prior to the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Poggenpohl noted that the BOA would like to see variances prior to the Planning Commission’s review. Board members also recommended that Wedding Venues become a valid use in Code to avoid this type of variance request. Applicant Comments: Steve Lane, Bas1s Architecture, disagreed that the use is not permitted explaining that in table 5.2 banquet halls are permitted in A zone as an accessory to an Accommodations use. This property is two parcels; this plan is not on the same lot as the restaurant and 33 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 November 6, 2018 units, but there are 14 accommodation units of the wedding venue lot. Table 5.2 notes, in additional conditions, except in A use meaning this was anticipated as an allowed use in code (detached structure). Numerous precedents have been set around town, which have all been allowed to be built. The square feet of primary vs accessory footage is 35,000 (accommodations)/12,000 (wedding venue). Jess Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering, discussed the additional parking planned, stating that the PC required an overflow parking plan as a condition to the Development Plan. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Lynch) to approve the requested variance with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 5-0. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:27 a.m. ___________________________________ Rex Poggenpohl, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT/OWNER: Donald and Kathy Townsend STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner VARIANCE REQUEST: A variance is requested to allow a side setback of 31 feet, in lieu of the minimum 50 feet required in the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.3, Table 4-2, for a proposed addition to an existing residence, located at 1545 Hummingbird Drive. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: An application for this variance was submitted by the applicant on January 4, 2019. Public notice was mailed out, and published in the Estes Park Trail Gazette, for a hearing to be held on February 5, 2019. Due to a miscommunication on staff’s part, the sign for the Board of Adjustment hearing was not posted on the property as required by the Estes Valley Development Code. The sign is to be posted a minimum of 15 days prior to the hearing. In order to meet this posting requirement, staff is requesting a continuance, to the March 5, 2019 Board of Adjustment hearing. 1545 Hummingbird Drive, Variance Request Side Setback 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 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: February 5th 2018; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.4.B. Table 4-5 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Non-Residential Zoning Districts. The Variance would allow one 2’ foot side and one 13’ foot side setback in lieu of the 15’ foot required setbacks in the A-1 (Accommodation) zone district on two existing buildings. The purpose of the Variance is to allow two existing structures to remain; a cabin and garage. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 1711 Mills Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517 (County) VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Jay Vetter/Same STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Variance would allow one 2’ foot side and one 13’ foot side setback in lieu of the 15’ foot required setbacks in the A-1 (Accommodation) zone district on two existing buildings. The A-1 Accommodation zone district requires a 15’ foot front setback. The lot has an existing cabin that already extends roughly 13’ feet into the side setback or roughly 2’ feet from the property line. The lot also has an existing garage that extends 2’ feet into the side setback or roughly 13’ feet from the property line. It is unknown when this encroachment occurred and the owner was aware of the non-conformity at time of purchase. What was unknown was the implication of being within the setbacks on the ability to secure an “as-built” permit to satisfy the Vacation Home life safety inspection Larimer County Requirement. By correcting this non-conformity this would also allow the owners to continue to operate as a vacation home within the County and tidy up two setback encroachments. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. “Standards for Review” of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. 1711 Mills Dr.– Building Setback Variance 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 1711 Mills Dr. – Building setback variance Page 2 of 5 REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 10 surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department “Current Applications” webpage. The site has been posted with a “Development Proposal” sign (Attached). Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No significant comments/concerns were received by reviewing agency staff. Public Comments. Staff has received one public comment to date, copy attached. Any written comments received after January 31, 2018 will be posted to the “Current Applications” webpage under public comment. STAFF FINDINGS: 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: The property is approximately .42-acres in size and is zoned A-1 (Accommodation). The setbacks for A -1 zoning are 15’ from the the front on a local street, 10’ from the side and 15’ from the rear setbacks. The existing cabin is placed within the side setback on the west by 13’ feet. The existing garage is placed within the side setback on the east by 2’ feet. Staff believes that the special circumstances of both structures (garage and cabin) existing in the setback is not common and will not nullify the intent and purposes of the specific standards the code or the comprehensive plan. 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: Without the variance, there cannot be beneficial use of the property. These properties have existed in their two locations for at least two decades. Without a variance the owners may eventually be faced with removing the two buildings and forfeit their Vacation home license. Given the surrounding neighborhood having similar cabins and accessory structures existing in their respective setbacks and the fact that County is requiring the homeowners to obtain this variance to obtains the required permits, staff finds that no beneficial use of the property can be had without a variance. b) Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance would establish an east side setback at 13’ out of 15’ and a west side setback of 2’ out of 15’. These are an 86.66% and 13.3% reduction from the code. The overall proposed setbacks of 2’ and 13’ is substantial. Staff finds that that where the structures are currently located will be minimal as they have been located 1711 Mills Dr. – Building setback variance Page 3 of 5 in these locations for quite some time. It is unknown when the nonconformity occurred. Staff does not find that granting this variance would be a substantial request. 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: The character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to drainage, migration corridors, etc). No new construction is expected as a result of this process. Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to nearby properties. d) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. This project has been routed to affected agencies and no major concerns were made. Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to the delivery of public services. e) Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property and were informed by a realtor that the buildings were properly permitted. It was not until the Vacation Home license registration process was underway that the owners were informed of the two structures being within the setbacks and the impact this would cause. Staff finds that granting the variance would help the applicant overcome the hardship of making sure the home is within compliance and allow for the continued use of the vacation registration. f) Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The structures are already built within the setback; short of tearing down the two structures or not allowing the use of the vacation registration the applicant’s predicament is pretty limited. One option is to allow the structures to remain within the setbacks, continue to be nonconforming and not allow the use of the vacation license. Staff finds this inappropriate for the applicant as the structures were already within the setback when the property was bought. Not granting the variance would eventually have negative consequences with or without the vacation-home element. 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 of situations. 1711 Mills Dr. – Building setback variance Page 4 of 5 Staff Finding: The conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley. It is not common to have structures located partially within a required setback. One could argue variances of this nature are becoming more common due to the zoning of this (and other) properties as incorrect to begin with. Any significant change in zoning is not likely to be accomplished quickly or easily. Zoning code and zoning map changes have proven to be difficult in Estes Valley. A variance is the only feasible alternative in the short term. 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 Finding: 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 Finding: A setback Variance as requested would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the existing buildings 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. Staff Finding: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7) In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff is not recommending any conditions be placed on this approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings for denial). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Public Comment 4. Application 5. Variance sign photos 1711 Mills Dr. – Building setback variance Page 5 of 5 6. Site plan Mills Drive Project Site 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. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 25 50Feet 1 in = 48 ft±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity Development Vicinity M ap Printed: 1/23/2019Created By: Robin Becker November 28, 2018 Mr. Randy Hunt Community Development Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 RE: 1711 Mills Drive Structure Setback Variance Request Dear Mr. Hunt, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES), on behalf of the owner Jay and Maureen Vetter, is submitting a variance request for an existing cabin and garage setback at 1711 Mills Drive, Estes Park, Colorado. Legal Description Subject property is a metes and bounds legal description as described in warranty deed recorded at reception no. 20090060176 dated 08/28/2009 in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Identified as Parcel No. 3534100035 in the Larimer County Assessor records. Variance request: Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts A-1, Minimum Building /Structural Setbacks, Side - 15 feet. Project Description The owners purchased the property in 2009 with the improvements already in place. During the purchase process, the owner had the realtor verify that all improvements had been permitted for construction which they were told all permitting was in place. For the last several years the cabin has been used as a vacation rental (as allowed within this zoning district) but realization that no permits were in place or variances granted until recently. Below is the history of what has transpired regarding the two structures: Cabin: A building permit was applied for but no action was taken after the submittal of the application. The cabin was constructed with no permit or variance request. 1711 Mills Drive, Request for Variance Setback Parcel Number 3534100035 Page 2 of 3 November 28, 2018 Garage: A building permit was applied for and granted for the existing garage. During the permitting process it was not identified that a variance would be required. Practical Difficulty 2. When determining “practical difficulty” the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance; a. There is a home on the property that does not infringe on the setbacks so the property has a beneficial use. As the two buildings that have existed partially in the side setbacks for two decades or more there would be no beneficial use for them without this variance. They would have to be removed b. Whether the variance is substantial; a. The variance for the cabin is substantial with the structure being 2-feet from the property line. b. The variance for the garage is not substantial and are requesting a 13-foot setback in lieu of the 15-foot setback. 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; a. The variance would have no effect on the neighborhood or adjoining properties as this condition has existed for more than two decades. Owners of adjoining properties have been contacted and have no problems with this. Every other property on the south side of Mills drive has dwellings that exist in the current setbacks. They were originally built before current codes were adopted. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect delivery of public services such as water and sewer; a. No utilities would be affected by the variance. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the requirement; a. When the applicants purchased the property in 2009 they inquired about whether all three buildings were permitted. They were informed by their realtor that he had checked and that the buildings were all permitted. They were aware that the cottage was probably too close to the property line and were informed that since it had been built on the foundation of a building from before zoning it was “grandfathered” in. The fact that the cottage was not permitted and that the garage was also in the setback was not discovered by the title company or disclosed by the sellers. The applicants have always operated the cottage as a licensed vacation rental. The fact that there was no building or occupancy permit was only discovered when they filed a Code Compliance Section Request for Parcel Research as part of the process for continuing to license the cottage as a vacation rental under the new guidelines requiring filing of a new building permit and completion of a life safety inspection. The parcel research application was filed on June 3, 2018 and the records review certificate was provided to the applicants on November 8, 2018 after communication with Amy White, Larimer County Code Compliance Inspector. At that time applicant was informed that Larimer County Community Development Department had determined that they needed to secure a variance for the setback before they could apply for an “as built” building permit and satisfy the life safety inspection for renewing a vacation rental permit. Applicants have already initiated 1711 Mills Drive, Request for Variance Setback Parcel Number 3534100035 Page 3 of 3 November 28, 2018 the inspections required for the as-built building permit and will comply with all modifications required to obtain that permit and satisfy the life safety inspection. f. Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; a. The Applicant’s purchased the property with the expectation that it included the permitted rental income-producing cottage (as it was advertised). They depend on that income to continue to own the property. Removal of the cottage and/or garage could make ownership of the property cost prohibitive for the Applicants. 3. The affected neighbors on both the west and east sides of the property approve the requested variance and having lived with condition for many years, the request is minimal. 4. The proposed variance will not reduce the size of the subject property or create additional building sites. 5. The requested variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. The use as a vacation rental and a loft above a garage are allowed in the A1 zoning district. 7. Applicants agree to make such modifications as the inspections require to secure the “as-built” building permit and satisfy the life safety inspection if licensed as a vacation rental. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Jes Reetz Planner Meeting Notes: The neighborhood meeting for the variance application for 1711 Mills Drive was held at the Rock Inn on Saturday, December 29, at 1 p.m. with the following persons present: Karry Egan, owner of the Rock Inn and neighborhood resident Bruce and Marilyn Johnson, 1703 Mills Drive Jeremy Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive Maureen and Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive The details of the variance were shared. The discussion centered around why such a meeting was necessary. There was no opposition expressed to granting the variance for a building that had been there for such a long time. Those present all thought that its location had been “grandfathered” in because it was built on the footprint of a previous cabin. No one present had any information about why a building permit had not been obtained when the cottage was constructed.