Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Maximum Density 1730 Raven Ave 2020-08-04 1730Raven Avenue,VarianceRequest Maximum Density Requirement 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 E STES P ARK B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEETINGDATE, FORMAT:August 4, 2020, 9:00 a.m.The public hearing may be conducted electronically. Advance registration for testifying atthe public hearing is preferredto ensure an orderly hearing. Information for participation in the public hearing will be provided in the published agenda, which will be available at https://estespark.colorado.gov/boardsandmeetings. APPLICANT REQUEST:Applicant is requestinga variance to the current density requirement in EPDC Sec. 4.3.C.4 Table 4-2 “Max. Net Density (units/acre)” column, for the RM (Residential Multifamily) Zoning District. The table requires a maximum of 8 units per acre; applicant requests a density of 25.5 units / acre. LOCATION: 1730 Raven Avenue, Town of Estes Park LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, North Lake Subdivision -Parcel ID Numbers2520315001and 2520318000 (note that the Larimer County Assessor shows the property divided into two lots –a vacant eastern part and a built western part, with 18 individual condominium airspace divisions on the west part) APPLICANT/OWNER:Cory Berg, Van Horn Engineering, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity / Richard J. & Lynn A. Ward STAFF CONTACT: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Although the density variance request itself is straightforward, this property has an extremely complexhistory with regard to land division and prior development reviews and approvals.This history does play a role in the variance request. We will start with the current situation and proposal, then bring in the history. The current request originated with a wish and plan by Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc. to buy and develop the vacant eastern area (approx. 2/3 of the total area)with six single-family houses. Their proposal would require several steps as they envisioned it: a.Make a small adjustment in what they believed to be an existing lot line between the vacant area of Lot 1 (the part described by the County as Parcel 2520315001) and the part built with North Lake Condos (Parcel 2520318000), with a Minor Subdivision; b.Further divide the vacant area into six single-family building lots, via Subdivision process; c.Build six houses, one on each lot, over a period of time. One problem with the above plan is that North Lake Condos themselves are already built over the 8- units-per-acre density standard for RM Zoning. The condos were built in the 1980s, when density standards were higher. Van Horn Engineering indicates in the Statement of Intent (Attachment 2) that the density maximum at that time was 38 units per acre in RM Zoning. Staff has been unable to confirm or dispute this figure to date. However, based on the evidence of many other multi-family complexes in town that are built to the North Lake density or similar, it seems clear that the RM density back then was certainly a lot more than 8 units per acre. The existence of a lot line between Parcels 2520315001 and 2520318000 (let’s call those the “North Lake Condo parcel” and the “vacant parcel”, respectively)is in dispute between the Town and the owner / applicant team. There was a deed dividing the original parent Lot 1 into two parcels, and that formed the basis for proceeding with Habitat’s recent plans, as they believed the vacant lot had been split off legally. Van Horn Engineering contends in the Statement of Intent that condominium mapping and platting in the 1980s also authorize and platted the lot split, and that the North Lake Condo mapping and platting did in fact accomplish this dual task of also splitting off the vacant parcel from the Condos parcel. Attachment 5 is the recorded map showing North Lake Condominium mapping. This was the legal instrument approved and recorded to create the condo airspaces in 1980. There is a suggestion of a lot line on the small map in the upper left corner, showing what could be interpreted as a separate vacant parcel.(At least the map shows a heavy thick line in that location, and a heavy line like this usually indicates a lot line being created on a plat. However, the map shows none of the typical labeling to indicate this is being done.) We process and approve condo maps like this today; however, splitting a lot on the ground with a condo mapping instrument like this would not be our practice nowadays. As the Statement on Intent indicates, staff since 2000 was asked at several points to determine that the vacant lot was split off by condo mapping, and as the Statement indicates, staff declined to acknowledge that this was done properly and ruled that the vacant “lot” had been created illegally. In any case, the applicants are willing to confirm the separate lot status once and for all with the Minor Subdivision, which will establish without question that there are two lots – one vacant to the east, and another with North Lake Condos to the west. The variance is needed if they are to do so. This history may not directly pertain to the current density request, but it helps explain two things: (1) Why North Lake Condos was able to be built at greater density than allowed today; and (2) how and why Habitat proceeded with the idea that the vacant parcel was indeed a buildable separate lot. Back to the present: North Lake Condos needs a variance, no matter how the lot lines are configured. Even on an undivided Lot 1, they are over 8 units per acre – the density for the existing 18 units, counting both parcels at 1.53 acres, is 11.7 units per acre. If the lot line between the two parcels is assumed to exist (and is validated through a Minor Subdivision, as Habitat and the owners plan), the existing density is approx. 28.1 units per acre. Either way, North Lake Condominiums is legally nonconforming and would have trouble with building permits, etc. (Note: The applicants are requesting a variance for 25.5 units per acre This is below the existing 28.1 units per acre with the assumed existing lot line The reason for the lower density request is that the applicants wish to move the lot line slightly to the east into the vacant parcel, to accommodate additional parking for the condos. This would be done through the proposed Minor Subdivision.) If the variance and the subdivision are both approved, Habitat could build their houses on the east lot. The east lot would not need a variance for density, as the six houses would only constitute 7.3 units per acre. Moreover, although this is a purely practical matter and not necessarily a justification for a variance, it’s undeniably true that the vacant area is not in good shape these days. Staff’s visit the week of July 27- 31 showed that the vacant area has accumulated what looks like a bunch of junk, including vehicles 1051 F ALL R IVER C OURT P AGE 2 OF 5 V ARIANCE R EQUEST, R EAR S ETBACK, BOA 6/2/20 that we would question are ready for the road, some miscellaneous auto components, and assorted other debris. Some vegetation looks dubiously weed-like; all is overgrown. The property surely shows an atmosphere of neglect. One may argue (as Habitat has done in their presentation, Attachment 6) that developing the property in a low-impact fashion is a neighborhood benefit. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to surrounding property owners in accordance with EPDC requirements. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. The application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The site has been posted as required. Staff has received one comment/question, which is posted online at the link below. The citizens did not express support or opposition, but did wish to know what was to be developed on the vacant part of the property; staff responded with that information from Habitat. Affected Agencies. This request was routed to our partner Town departments and external agencies. None provided comments that affected the current variance request. Some reviewers indicated that they will need to review any future development on the vacant area; staff will be routing any such proposals to them for comment. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with the EPDC, Section 3.6 C., Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. These standards and criteria are outlined under “Staff Findings,” below. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. 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: Special circumstances do exist. The history of this property’s development is probably not repeated anywhere else in Town. 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 can be beneficial use of the property as a whole; however, the proposed use by Habitat is arguably of more benefit to the neighborhood and community than a vacant lot that attracts junk and weeds. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance may be considered somewhat substantial, since 25.5 units per acre is well over the current 8 units per acre. However, no added density is proposed for North Lake Condominiums, and no new units could be added if the variance and subdivision are approved. The Habitat units would be much lower density than additional condos. 1051 F ALL R IVER C OURT P AGE 3 OF 5 V ARIANCE R EQUEST, R EAR S ETBACK, BOA 6/2/20 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 the character of the neighborhood would be altered, and there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties with approval of the proposed variance. The neighborhood is a mixture of single-family and multi-family units. Habitat’s units would be below the density threshold and would be small single-family dwellings (a badly needed element in Estes Park.) 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. 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. However, it seems all parties genuinely thought there was an existing lot line and the vacant parcel was a buildable lot. The North Lake Condo map from 1980 and the Assessor’s records today may give weight to this belief. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The only other method to fix this to staff’s knowledge would be creating a new zoning district with over 25 units per acre, and rezoning the western parcel to it. This idea may have merit for this and some other older, densely built multi-family properties in town. It may even have merit for new development or redevelopment. That is a larger discussion and needs to wait for another time. At this time, the variance seems the only option. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: A variance is the least deviation from the regulations. There is no process that could provide a lesser deviation than the proposed variance. The proposed density of 25.5 units per acre is very close to the current North Lake Condos density, assuming the slight lot line shift that’s to come. 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’s only suggested condition for this variance is that the proposed Minor Subdivision be completed and recorded within one year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE the requested variance, allowing, with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report, and specifically including the following condition: 1051 F ALL R IVER C OURT P AGE 4 OF 5 V ARIANCE R EQUEST, R EAR S ETBACK, BOA 6/2/20 1.The Minor Subdivision, as substantially shown on the Preliminary Minor Plat of Lot 1, North Lake Subdivision, shall be approved and recorded within one (1) year from the date this variance is approved, or the variance shall be deemed null and void. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Preliminary Minor Plat of Lot 1, North Lake Subdivision 5. Condominium Map for North Lake Condominiums 6. Presentation from Habitat for Humanity 1051 F ALL R IVER C OURT P AGE 5 OF 5 V ARIANCE R EQUEST, R EAR S ETBACK, BOA 6/2/20 STATEMENT OF INTENT DENSITY VARIANCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY DEVELOPMENT July 14, 2020 Density Variance Request for Lot 1A,AmendedPlat of North Lake Subdivision th Located in Section 20, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6P.M., Countyof Larimer, State of Colorado This variance requests an increase allowed units per acrefrom 8 to 25.5for Lot 1A.In its current stateLot 1,North Lake Subdivisionis under-utilized.On the west portion of the lotisNorth Lake Condominiums containing18 units. The east portion of the lot is vacant, overgrown and underutilized. In its currentstate, there cannot beany beneficialuse of this vacant eastern portion of the lot. This variance is supported by aHabitat for Humanityproject with the intent to build 6 single family homes on the eastern portion (proposed Lot 2A) ofLot 1. These homes would complementthe existing characterof the neighborhoodin use,visual style and provide badly needed affordable housing. All required utilities existimmediately adjacent to the property andwould require no extension to adequately serveany future project. The applicant, Richard and Lynn Ward, purchased the Lot 1in 1989 with no knowledge of the complications that exist today. At the time of purchase, zoning regulationsallowed for 38 units per acre in RM zoning. The zoning changes and adoption of the current development codegreatly reduced the development potential of this lot. The originalNorth Lake Condominium projectin 1979wasapproved for 30.75 units per acre (46 units total). There has been great effortto avoid a variance request. In September 1980, the Condominium Map for North Lake Condominiums was recorded.It was common practice at the time in the Estes Valley for such Condominium Mapsto create multiple lots, one for the completed building(s) and one for the vacant remaining land. In the early 2000’s, the planning department ruled that this lot split was illegal and no development was possible on the lot.This decision meant that the eastern portion of Lot1 was to remain in its under-utilized state, with no option to remedy this situation. This variance request meets all Standards for Revie put forth by the Estes Park Development Code 3.6.C.Approval of this variance request would be the first step in remedying the illegal lot classification and provide a step towards a Habitat for Humanity project to provide real benefitto the Estes Park Community. Home Maintenance, Financial equity (approx. $32k to $60k/year in Estes Park) Classes and Neighbor Class, 500 hours of sweat - 60% AMI - Good Fitness, etc. 30Steady income/ manageable debt250Training Willingness to PartnerUS Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident 3.4. Improved healthoutcomes 26 different homes in over