HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2024-12-03BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, December 3, 2024
9:00 a.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s YouTube channel and recorded and posted
to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS
AGENDA APPROVAL
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Board of Adjustment Minutes dated October 1, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address).
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Variance to Minimum Lot Size 610 Lone Pine Drive Planner Washam
2.Variance to Attainable/Workforce Housing Standards 650 Halbach Lane
Director Careccia
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.Upcoming meeting items
ADJOURN
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
November 27, 2024 1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 1, 2024
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the Town of
Estes Park on October 1, 2024.
Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice-Chair Newsom, Member Holtzman, Senior Planner Paul
Hornbeck, Planner Kara Washam, Community Development Director Steve Careccia,
Town Board Liaison Bill Brown, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: none
Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Newsom) to approve the agenda. The
motion passed 3-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holtzman) to approve the Consent
Agenda. The motion passed 3-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Variance to the Side Setback 1041 Pine Lane Planner Washam
The Applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced side setback of three feet (3')
along the east property line in lieu of the ten feet (10') side setback required in the R-
2 (Two-Family Residential) Zone District. The proposal is to construct an attached
garage with a new access drive, and the existing driveway will be removed. The rock
outcropping makes it impossible to build the garage within the setbacks. Staff
recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, subject to the
findings described in the report.
DISCUSSION:
The code allows two curb cuts for a driveway.
Mike Daley, Architech, stated the applicants agree with staff conditions.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance
request for a three-foot (3') side setback along the east property line for the
subject property, with the conditions and findings outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed 3-0.
2.Variance to the River Setback 375 Moraine Ave Senior Planner Hornbeck
The Applicant desires to replace the existing bumper car building with a new
amusement ride in the same general footprint, encroaching into the required 30' river
setback. The Applicant requests a variance from Estes Park Development Code
Sec. 7.6.E.1.a(2)(b) requiring a 30' setback from the annual high-water mark of the
river. The amusement ride would be constructed as close as 5.5' from the high water
mark of the Big Thompson River. The existing building is located approximately 4.7'
from the river at its closest point. Staff recommended approval of the request with no
conditions.
DISCUSSION
Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, was available to answer questions.
dra
f
t
3
Board of Adjustment, October 1, 2024 – Page 2
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance with
the findings as outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 3-0.
REPORTS:
Planning Staff will attend the State Planning Conference in Loveland later this week.
With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:27 a.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
dra
f
t
4
5
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Kara Washam, Planner I
Date: December 3, 2024
Application: Variance Request for Reduced Lot Size
610 Lone Pine Drive, Estes Park
Amy Starspeaker, Owner/Applicant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land
Use): Neighborhood Village
Zoning District: Two-Family Residential (R-2)
Site Area: 0.42 Acres (+/- 18,353 SF)
☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE
☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
The Applicant requests approval of a variance to the minimum lot size of 27,000
square feet required for duplex developments on one lot in the R-2 (Two-Family
Residential) Zone District under Section 4.3.C.4. (Table 4-2, Note 6) of the Estes
Park Development Code (EPDC).
Background:
The subject property, Lot 1A, was created in 1998 with the Amended Plat of Lot 1 of
Lone Pine Acres Addition (Attachment 9). At the time, the lot was zoned RM (Multi-
Family), which required a minimum lot size of 18,000 square feet or 0.41 acres. The plat
also approved zero lot line development. The lot was rezoned to R-2 (Two-Family
Residential) in 2000 with the adoption of the current Estes Park Development Code
(EPDC). The lot is 0.42 acres and is conforming to dimensional standards and use for
single-family residential. Two-family dwelling units is a permitted use. However, this
6
2
requires a minimum lot size of 27,000 square feet. At 18,353 square feet, the property is
approximately 68% conforming to the minimum lot size required for a two-family unit.
The property contains one single-family attached residence constructed in 1999. The
residence appears as a duplex in form but since it is on a separate lot, it is considered
an “attached single-family home” with a Shared Party Wall Agreement with the neighbor
at 1725 Raven Avenue. To qualify as a duplex, or two-family residential dwelling unit,
the attached dwellings must be located on a single lot.
The Applicant/Owner purchased the property in 2023 to use as a full-time primary
residence. There has been a recent, unexpected change in the Applicant’s household,
requiring her to consider options to supplement her income. The upper level is of
sufficient space for the Applicant and she wishes to use the lower level as a long-term
rental unit.
Existing Conditions
Variance Description
The Applicant requests approval of a variance to the minimum lot size of 27,000
square feet required for duplex developments on one lot in the R-2 (Two-Family
Residential) Zone District. The Applicant intends to finish the walk-out lower level of
the existing residence as a stacked duplex (Attachment 3) to use as a long-term
rental unit. The proposed development will require no additional build-out of the
residence but an additional driveway is proposed (Attachment 4).
7
3
Proposed Site Plan
Proposed Lower-Level Unit
8
4
Location and Context:
The subject property is located at 610 Lone Pine Drive, approximately 600’ northeast of
the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue and Lone Pine Drive. The property is zoned
R-2 (Two-Family Residential) and is surrounded by residential properties zoned R-2,
RM (Multi-Family), and E (Estate). The parcel west is zoned CO (Commercial Outlying)
and is currently an auto repair shop. Southeast of the subject property is the recently
platted Raven Subdivision, currently under development by Habitat for Humanity.
Vicinity Map
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Comprehensive Plan (2022) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Neighborhood Village R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Residential
North Suburban Estate E (Estate) Residential
South Mixed Residential
Neighborhood RM (Multi-Family Residential) Residential
East Neighborhood Village R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Residential
West Mixed-Use Centers and
Corridors CO (Commercial Outlying) Auto Body Shop
9
5
Zoning Map
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
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. 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. The property is zoned to permit 2-
family residential use but the lot is only 68% conforming to lot size for that use.
The 27,000 square feet minimum lot size requirement for two dwelling units went
into effect in October 2001 (Ordinance 18-01), three years after the lot was
created and one year after it was rezoned to R-2. This ordinance has limited the
highest and best use of the property.
10
6
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 without the variance
and an additional dwelling unit. However, the applicant wishes to add the lower-
level dwelling unit to increase the much-needed rental stock for the Estes Valley
and to supplement her income.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance request for a reduced minimum lot size for two
dwelling units is moderately substantial. However, since the proposed second
dwelling unit will be utilized in the lower level of the existing home, the impact to
the existing lot is limited.
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 essential character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered with the addition of the proposed second dwelling unit. The
neighborhood exhibits a range of density, including R-2 (Two-Family Residential)
and RM (Multi-Family Residential).
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The proposed additional dwelling unit will not adversely affect the
delivery of public services. The proposal was referred out to applicable agencies
and no concerns were received.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The Applicant purchased the property in September 2023 with the
knowledge that the property was zoned R-2 (Two-Family Residential) but was
not aware that the lot did not meet the minimum lot size requirement for two
dwelling units.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: Approval of the requested variance for a reduced minimum lot
size is the only method to mitigate the Applicant’s predicament. The Applicant
11
7
considered finishing the basement as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
However, ADUs are not permitted in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning
district per Table 5-1 of the EPDC.
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 or situations.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
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: Not applicable. Approval of the variance request will not result in
an additional lot being created.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The proposed variance would be the least deviation from the
Development Code.
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 zoning district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
Staff Finding: The proposed two-family dwelling use is permitted by right in the
R-2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning district per Table 4-1 of the EPDC.
7. 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 Finding: Staff has no recommendations for conditions of approval.
Review Agency Comments
The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public
Works supports the variance request but encourages a shared driveway for the
proposed second dwelling unit (Attachment 5). Building Division requires Fire Rated
separation per R302 of the 2021 International Residential Code (IRC) (Attachment 6)
and will complete a formal review if a building permit is submitted. Estes Valley Fire
Protection District has no comments for the lot size variance but states that the
proposed second dwelling unit will need to be sprinklered (Attachment 7).
12
8
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no comments were received.
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on November 13, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on November 15, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Advantages
This variance would allow the Applicant to finish out her basement into an additional
dwelling unit, which in turn would increase the housing stock of the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages
There are no known disadvantages of approval of the variance request to reduce the
minimum lot size of 27,000 square feet required for duplex developments on one lot in
the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Zone District.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance to the minimum lot size
requirement, as described in this staff report, with the proposed additional dwelling unit
consistent with the Site Plan (Attachment 4) and Lower-Level Proposed Floor Plan
(Attachment 3).
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Little or none.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the requested variance to the minimum lot size of 27,000 square feet
required for duplex developments on one lot in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Zone
District for the subject property addressed as 610 Lone Pine Drive in the Town of Estes
Park, with findings as outlined in the staff report.
I move to approve the requested variance to the minimum lot size of 27,000 square feet
required for duplex developments on one lot in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Zone
District for the subject property addressed as 610 Lone Pine Drive in the Town of Estes
Park, with conditions [state conditions] and with findings as outlined in the staff report.
I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings [state
reason/findings].
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
13
9
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Lower-Level Proposed Floor Plan
4. Site Plan
5. Public Works Referral Comments
6. Building Division Referral Comments
7. Estes Valley Fire Protection District
8. Improvement Location Certificate (ILC)
9. Amended Plat of Lone Pine Acres
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Community Development Department Planning Division
970-577-3721 planning@estes.org
PROJECT ROUTING REFERRAL FORM
AGENCY Public Works
REVIEWER Jennifer Waters
SIGNATURE
DATE 10/24/2024
☐ No Comments
☐ Resubmittal Required
☐ Comments Provided via Comment Letter (attached)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
610 Lone pine Dr – Lot size variance application. On behalf of Public Works, the
finding is that this variance request is reasonable and there is no case to make against
its approval. The proposed new driveway location meets geometry and intersection
proximity standards in EPDC, Appendix D. III. The only barrier may be the utility pole
guy wire adjacent to the proposed driveway. A shared driveway is encouraged as an
alternative. Final reviews for ROW and site work may occur as part of the building
permit process.
21
Kara Washam <kwasham@estes.org>
610 Lone Pine Bldg. Dept Comments
1 message
Terry Hansen <thansen@safebuilt.com>Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 1:24 PM
To: Kara Washam <kwasham@estes.org>
Cc: Dan Wester <DWester@safebuilt.com>
It is my understanding that the lower level of this residence is already finished. I am listing the International Residential
Code (IRC) Sections to separate the two Dwelling Units.
Chapter 2 Definitions
Dwelling Unit: A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
Separation
R302 Fire Resistant Construction
This will be required to fully separate the two units, including the penetrations of the Fire Rated Assemblies. All structural
elements that support the upper unit will require Fire Rating as well.
The design and construction or alteration of the lower must be compliant with the IRC as well. The Link below may be
used to gain free access to the IRC.
Reference Chapter 3 of the IRC for requirements for:
R303 Light, Ventilation and Heating
R304 Minimum Room Areas
R305 Ceiling Height
R306 Sanitation
R307 Toilet Bath and Shower Spaces
R308 Glazing
R310 Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings
R311 Means of Egress, for lower unit and upper unit Means of Egress must remain IRC compliant.
R313 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. This entire structure will be required to have Automatic Fire Sprinklers. Consult
the Estes Valley Fire Protection District for specifics. They will set the requirements, issue the Permit for it and do all
inspections.
R314 Smoke Alarms, both upper and lower unit
R315 Carbon Monoxide Alarms, both upper and lower unit
22
Respectfully,
Terry Hansen
Deputy Building Official
SAFEbuilt LLC
Direct 303.450.8747
Permit help 303.450.8745
Inspection Request Line 303.450.8748
Free online access to the I-Codes https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/collections/I-Codes
23
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Community Development Department Planning Division
970-577-3721 planning@estes.org
PROJECT ROUTING REFERRAL FORM
AGENCY Estes Valley Fire Protection
District
REVIEWER Stacey Sutherland
SIGNATURE
DATE 10/17/2024
☐ No Comments
☐ Resubmittal Required
☐ Comments Provided via Comment Letter (attached)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
We do not have any comments on the Lot Size Variance. I do have a comment
about the new residence being sprinklered.
IFC 903.2.8 Group R- an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with
section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.
With the installation of a fire sprinkler system, I believe that also reduces the
horizontal separation from 1- hour to ½- hour.
24
25
26
27
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
Date: December 3, 2024
Application: Variance Request for Attainable/Workforce Housing Deed Restriction
650 Halbach Lane / Lot 5 Mangelsen Subdivision
Maurice Scraggs, Owner/Applicant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
Future Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Village
Zoning District: R-1 (Residential)
Site Area: 5,000 SF
☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE ☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
The applicant requests approval of a variance to amend specific provisions of
Section 11.4 (Attainable/Workforce Housing Density Bonus) of the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC) applicable to the R-1 (Residential) zoning district
pursuant to Section 4.3.D.4-5 of the EPDC.
Background:
The subject property was rezoned from R-2 (Two-Family Residential) to R-1
(Residential) in 2003. It is Lot 5 of the Mangelsen subdivision. The final plat for the
subdivision was recorded in 2004.
Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) purchased the property in 2004 with the intent of
providing attainable housing. However, Habitat decided not to build a home on the
property. The applicant purchased the undeveloped property in 2015 with the intent of
building a market-rate single-family home.
28
2
The zoning, land use, and future land use designations of surrounding properties are
summarized in the table below.
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Future Land Use
Designation (Comp Plan) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Neighborhood Village R-1 (Residential) Single Family
Residence
North Mixed Residential
Neighborhood RM (Multi-Family) Multi-Family
Residences
South Neighborhood Village R-1 (Residential) Single Family
Residence
East Neighborhood Village R-1 (Residential) Single Family
Residence
West Neighborhood Village R-1 (Residential) Single Family
Residence
Vicinity Map
SUBJECT PROPERTY
29
3
Zoning Map
Section 4.3 (Residential Zoning Districts) of the EPDC requires all properties within the
R-1 (Residential) zoning district to be subject to a deed restriction as established within
Section 11.4 (Attainable/Workforce Housing Density Bonus) of the EPDC (section
attached). The deed restriction shall be a formalized agreement between the Town and
property owner.
Section 11.4 requires housing units within the R-1 (Residential) zoning district to be
attainable to people living and/or working in the Estes Valley. It does so by requiring a
deed restriction to assure the availability of the unit for sale or rent to people meeting
the income guidelines established within Section 11.4. Both the rezoning and
subdivision approvals applicable to the subject property require it to be deed restricted
in accordance with Section 11.4.
Given the above-stated EPDC regulations, the 650 Halbach Lane property is required to
have a deed restriction ensuring its attainability for qualified renters/buyers. However, a
deed restriction has yet to be executed for the property.
Variance Description
30
4
The applicant is requesting variances to the above-noted attainable and workforce
housing provisions applicable to properties located within the R-1 (Residential) zoning
district. As noted in the attached Statement of Intent, the applicant states that he was
unaware of these requirements when he purchased the property and started
construction of a single-family home. While the applicant is supportive of the overall
deed restriction requirement and providing attainable housing, there are some
provisions that pose a hardship given his current circumstances and conditions.
The first requested variance would increase the maximum housing costs to income
requirement from 40% to 50%. The existing requirement states housing costs (typically
consisting of rent/mortgage & utility expenses) should not exceed 40% of that
household’s income. The applicant has indicated that this provision is an undue burden
on his ability to sell the home given that housing costs have significantly increased since
the Town’s attainable housing requirements were initially adopted. But increasing the
maximum allowance to 50% would open the sale of the home to a larger pool of
qualified buyers based on research provided to the applicant by local lenders.
The second requested variance would reduce the term of the deed restriction from 50
years to 20 years. The term was initially 20 years when the Mangelsen subdivision was
approved but was increased to 50 years in 2017. The applicant has indicated that a 50-
year term would be an undue burden as the homes in this subdivision were only
restricted for 20 years, with those restrictions ending next year. By imposing a 50-year
term on this home, it would become an outlier within this subdivision and be inconsistent
with the previous 20-year terms placed on the other homes.
As part of this application for variance, the applicant is also requesting an appeal of staff
interpretations regarding Section 11.4 and resultant language used within the Town’s
standard deed restriction. These appeals include:
1. Rent or Sale
Section 11.4 references both renter- and owner-occupied units as opportunities
for attainable housing. However, the Town’s standard deed restriction only allows
rental of the home in specific hardship situations, such as the onset of an illness
or disability. The applicant would like the option to rent the home without having
to be in such a hardship situation. The appeal of this staff interpretation would
remove the rental restriction and owner occupancy requirement from the subject
property’s deed restriction.
2. Household Income Classification
To qualify to live in the home as proposed with the standard deed restriction, a
household could earn no more than 150% of the Larimer County Area Median
Income (AMI). As an example, a household with two individuals could earn no
more than $132,600. The applicant would like to ensure that the income
determination is based on the annual income of those intending to live in the
home, with the means that the household uses to qualify for a mortgage kept
separate and not a part of the income determination. The appeal of this staff
interpretation would add clarifying language to the subject property’s deed
31
5
restriction defining household income as the annual income of those intending to
live in the home.
3. Maximum Sales Price
The standard deed restriction language directs the Town (or assignee) to
establish the maximum sales price for the home. The applicant states this
requirement involves complex calculations and estimations, with each potential
purchaser having a different set of financial circumstances. He also states the
language is redundant, as the home must be made affordable to those earning
no more than 150% of the Larimer County AMI. So effectively, there would still
be a maximum sales price the applicant could request, as he would need to work
with the Town to ensure the home remained affordable in accordance with the
provisions of Section 11.4. However, the difference would be the applicant would
have more participation in the determination of the sales price. The appeal of this
staff interpretation would add clarifying language to the subject property’s deed
restriction stating that the Town (or assignee) and property owner will collaborate
on determining the home’s maximum sales price.
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
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. 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 applicant lives next door to the subject property. He states he
purchased it in 2015, using all available savings he had, to build a market-rate
home for sale. If he had initially known of the deed restriction, he states he would
have built a more affordable home in terms of size, configuration, and
furnishings. But, unaware of the deed restriction, he built a larger market-rate
home at two-stories and entered into a contract with a potential buyer. But, while
requesting inspections for a Certificate of Occupancy, staff informed him that a
deed restriction was required. The applicant states this information caught him by
surprise and caused the termination of the sales contract. It further caused a
financial situation given there was now no income to support the mortgage or pay
back the construction loans. Even so, he maintains that the deed restriction will
be executed in conformance with Town requirements, thus supporting the
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. The request for these variances is
32
6
only to offer relief to certain standards currently posing practical difficulty with the
sale and/or rental of the home.
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: A deed restriction is required for this home, which the applicant
states he supports and will execute. However, he is finding it difficult to either
sell or rent the home to a qualified household under the strict terms of the
standard deed restriction language. As such, beneficial use of the property as
attainable and/or workforce housing has been negatively affected.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial and maintains the intent of the
attainable/workforce housing provisions set forth in Section 11.4 of the EPDC.
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: There would be no impact on the neighborhood or adjoining
properties. The surrounding area consists of other single-family or multi-family
residences, some with deed restrictions. Further, a single-family home with a
deed restriction is the intended use within the R-1 zoning district.
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. The application was provided to the Estes Park Housing Authority for
review. Their comments are attached.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The applicant resides at 652 Halbach Lane. He bought the
adjacent property at 650 Halbach Lane in 2015 with the intent of building a
market-rate home and selling it. He further states that it was purchased without
knowledge of the deed restriction requirement.
As noted in the Statement of Intent, an attainable/workforce deed restriction is
typically placed on a home at time of rezoning and/or subdivision. The property
owner, usually an entity such as the Housing Authority or Habitat for Humanity,
works with the Town on the deed restriction language and processing. As such,
33
7
when the home is eventually purchased or rented by a qualified household, the
deed restriction is already in place. However, in this instance, the requirement
for the deed restriction was established with the rezoning, but not executed.
Nor was the deed restriction executed with the subsequent approval of the
preliminary and final subdivision plats. Rather, the deed restriction was left to
execution when a home was built on the lot, which introduced a significant level
of uncertainty into the process and placed the responsibility of the deed’s
execution on a private owner, who likely would not be well versed in the matter.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The applicant’s predicament is best mitigated with this variance.
It maintains the EPDC’s intent to provide attainable/workforce housing to
qualified individuals.
2. 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 Finding: This is a unique situation that is not of a general nature. The
requirement for deed restriction is typically addressed by Habitat for Humanity
or the Housing Authority, who are both well versed in the workings of the
restriction. However, in this instance, the requirement fell onto a private owner,
who was not aware nor well versed in deed restrictions, at a time when the
home was already constructed and contracted for sale.
3. 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: This variance does not affect lot size nor the number of lots in
this subdivision.
4. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief. The overall requirement for a deed restriction will still apply
to this lot.
5. 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 zoning district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
34
8
Staff Finding: This variance does not affect the use of the lot as it will remain
used as a single-family home.
6. 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 Finding: Staff does not recommend any conditions.
Review Agency Comments
There are no review agency comments.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, staff has received one general inquiry
into this variance request. No opposition to the variance has been received.
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on November 13, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on November 15, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
● Sign posted on property by applicant.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance and associated appeals.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Public interest has been light. To date, there has been no public opposition to this
variance request.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance and associated appeals in accordance with the findings
outlined in the staff report.
I move to deny the variance with the following findings [state reasons/findings].
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Development Code Section 11.4 (Attainable/Workforce Housing Density Bonus)
4. Estes Park Housing Authority Letter dated November 26, 2024
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Created: 2024-09-16 09:26:53 [EST]
(Supp. No. 22)
Page 1 of 2
§ 11.4 ATTAINABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
A. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of attainable and workforce
housing for persons living and/or working in the Estes Valley.
(Ord. 2-02 §9; Ord. 28-16, § 1; Ord. 30-17, § 1(Exh.))
B. Eligibility. All residential subdivisions and developments in the RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning district
are eligible for the attainable or workforce housing density bonus set forth in this Section. This Section's
density bonus for attainable or workforce housing shall not be available and shall not be applied in any
zoning district except the RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning district.
(Ord. 2-02 §9; Ord. 28-16, § 1; Ord. 30-17, § 1(Exh.))
C. "Attainable" and "Workforce" Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable housing units"
and "workforce housing units" shall mean the following:
1. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the
Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size.
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility expenses) must not exceed thirty
percent (30%) of the maximum income for an imputed household size based on one hundred fifty
percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income. The imputed household size is equal
to one and one-half (1.5) times the number of bedrooms in the unit. For example, rent on a two-
bedroom unit would be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income limit of a three-
person family; for a three-bedroom unit the rent should not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the
monthly income of a four-and-one-half-person family—the midpoint of the range of a four- and
five-person family.
c. If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a utility allowance, computed by the
Estes Park Housing Authority, must be subtracted from the housing cost to determine the
maximum rent.
(Ord. 2-02 #9)
2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the
Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size.
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty percent (40%) of the one-
hundred-fifty-percent Larimer County Area Median Income, adjusted for household size.
(Ord. 2-02 #9)
3. Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County Area Median Income is the current
applicable area median income for Larimer County published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
(Ord. 2-02 §9)
4. Workforce Housing. Housing units shall be eligible for the Maximum Permitted Density Bonus (Sec.
11.4.D) if at least one (1) resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of
42
Created: 2024-09-16 09:26:53 [EST]
(Supp. No. 22)
Page 2 of 2
a W-2 form, to the Town certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District
R-3 Boundary Map.
(Ord. 2-02 §9; Ord. 28-16, § 1; Ord. 30-17, § 1(Exh.))
D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Subject to the standards and review criteria set forth in this Section and
Chapter, attainable or workforce housing units are eligible for a density bonus of up to two (2) times (two
hundred percent [200%]) of the base Max. Net Density standard set forth in the Estes Valley Development
Code.
(Ord. 28-16, § 1; Ord. 30-17, § 1(Exh.))
E. Development and Design Standards.
1. [Reserved.]
2. Public Sewers and Water Required. All developments containing attainable or workforce housing units
approved under provisions of this Section shall be served by public central sewer service and public
water service.
3. Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable or workforce housing units approved under provisions of
this Section shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see
§5.1.B).
(Ord. 02-10 §1)
4. Deed Restriction or Restrictive Covenant and Agreement Required. Attainable or workforce housing
units developed pursuant to this Section shall use one of the two mechanisms below to assure the
availability of the units for sale or rent to persons meeting the income or workforce guidelines and
definition set forth in §11.4.C above. The Community Development Director shall determine which one
of the two mechanisms below is applicable:
a. Deed Restriction. Attainable or workforce housing units shall be deed restricted. The deed
restriction shall be for a time period of no less than fifty (50) years. The deed restriction used to
restrict the units shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney.
b. Restrictive Covenant and Agreement. A Restrictive Covenant and Agreement shall be entered
into between the property owner and the Town or County. The Restrictive Covenant and
Agreement shall be for a time period of no less than fifty (50) years, shall run with the land, and
shall be binding on the owner and all subsequent owners and successors. The Restrictive
Covenant and Agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the Town or County Attorney. Upon
approval by the Town or County Attorney, the Restrictive Covenant and Agreement shall be
subject to review by the decision-making body with the associated preliminary subdivision, or, if
no subdivision approval is required, with the associated development plan. The Restrictive
Covenant and Agreement shall be properly executed and recorded.
(Ord. 28-16, § 1; Ord. 30-17, § 1(Exh.); Ord. 03-18, § 1(Exh.))
(Ord. 13-99 §D.4, 11/3/99; Ord. 2-02 #9, 2/12/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05; Ord. 2-10 #1, 1/26/10; Ord. 28-16, §
1(Exh. A), 12/13/16; Ord. 30-17, § 1(Exh.), 11/14/17; Ord. 03-18, § 1(Exh.), 3/13/18)
43
Scott Moulton
Estes Park Housing Authority
363 E. Elkhorn Ave, Suite 101
Estes Park, CO 80517
November 26, 2024
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: 650 Halbach Lane - Deed Restriction
To the Community Development Department:
The Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) has been engaged in matters related to 650 Halbach Lane
to clarify and strengthen deed restriction language in accordance with the Town of Estes Park Development
Code. This letter provides an overview of EPHA’s involvement, position, and recommendations based on our
experience in monitoring compliance with deed restrictions in the Estes Valley—both those created by EPHA
and those established by the Town of Estes Park independently.
EPHA currently has an active memorandum of understanding with the Town of Estes Park regarding
the monitoring of deed restrictions in the Estes Valley. While EPHA may identify potential non-compliance
issues, enforcement remains the Town's responsibility, except in cases where the deed restrictions were
created and executed by EPHA.
Background and Position on 650 Halbach Lane
1. Basic Research
During our involvement, prompted by Mr. Scraggs and his real estate agent, EPHA conducted due diligence
and research regarding this property. We believe the 2015 purchase of this lot was properly documented as
including a requirement for a deed restriction. However, EPHA has not independently reviewed the associated
sales documents.
2. Duty to Notify
EPHA recommends that the Town implement a process to notify property owners of potential deed restrictions
early in the development process. In this case, to the best of our knowledge, Mr. Scraggs was allowed to
complete the construction of a single-family residence in compliance with permitting guidelines, only to be
informed of the deed restriction at the certificate of occupancy stage. This notification should occur earlier to
avoid similar issues in the future. Our opinion is based on a desire to protect outstanding deed restrictions
which the Town has previously required but may not have been recorded.
44
3. Ability to Rent
EPHA believes that deed restrictions for attainable and workforce housing should explicitly allow units to be
rented to qualified households as determined by EPHA. To our knowledge, this is standard practice for all deed
restrictions in the Estes Valley. EPHA has also met with Mr. Scraggs to discuss rental options and the
associated process for this property.
4. Debt-to-Income Ratio (DTI)
EPHA strongly opposes raising the DTI ratio from 40% to 50%, as proposed by Mr. Scraggs. The current
standard is consistent with prudent mortgage lending practices. Increasing the ratio to 50% would place
borrowers at a higher risk of default. While we could support an increase to the market standard of 43%, we
still consider this provision too lenient.
5. Duration of Deed Restrictions
EPHA advocates for all workforce or attainable housing deed restrictions in the Estes Valley to have a
minimum duration of 50+ years, as opposed to the development code's 20-year minimum. Preserving
restricted housing for the long term aligns with the best interests of the community and promotes sustainable
housing solutions.
6. Maximum Sales Price Provisions
EPHA supports the applicant’s request to remove direct maximum sales price provisions from the deed
restriction. Establishing a maximum sales price without an associated appreciation clause is impractical and
creates unnecessary challenges for buyers and sellers. Sellers should retain the flexibility to price their homes
based on market conditions and the expectations of qualified buyers.
7. Household Income and Mortgage Qualification
EPHA strongly opposes any changes to the definition of a "qualified household" as outlined in the deed
restriction. All household income must be considered when determining eligibility. Allowing income from
individuals not listed on the deed of trust would violate the intent of income-restricted housing programs. EPHA
remains firm that these income qualifications must be adhered to without exception.
Sincerely,
Scott Moulton
Executive Director
Estes Park Housing Authority
45