Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2025-01-07BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK 170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room Tuesday, January 7, 2025 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 December 3, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address). ACTION ITEMS: 1.Variance to Side Setback 207 Evergreen Lane 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. December 30, 2024 1 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 3, 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 December 3, 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, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None; Holzman attended virtually via Google Meet. Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holtzman) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 3-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: none ACTION ITEMS: 1.Variance to the Minimum Lot Size 610 Lone Pine Dr. Planner Washam The Applicant requests approval of a variance to the minimum lot size of 27,000 square feet, which is 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 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. Staff recommended approval of the request. DISCUSSION: none It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request 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 with findings as outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 3-0. 2. Variance for Attainable/Workforce Housing Deed Restriction 650 Halbach Ln Planner Washam 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. However, 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 other homes in this subdivision were only restricted for 20 years, with those restrictions ending next year. Imposing a 50-year term on this home would become an outlier within dra f t 3 Board of Adjustment, December 3, 2024 – Page 2 this subdivision and be inconsistent with the previous 20-year terms placed on the other homes. As part of this application for a variance, the Applicant is also requesting the removal of three provisions in the Town's standard deed restriction for the subject property. These provisions include rental restriction, household income classification and maximum sales price. Staff recommended approval of the proposed variance and associated appeals. DISCUSSION: Habitat sold this lot in 2016 and did not put a deed restriction on it because they never built on it. The deed restriction is different from the zoning restriction. Town Attorney Kramer reminded the Board that the application is a variance and should be reviewed under variance criteria. The variance for renting this home will need provisions added to the deed restriction to ensure anyone who rents the home qualifies. The Code specifies the income restrictions but does not have all the procedures laid out. Based on the buyer's debt-to-income ratio, a maximum sale price would still be established Moreau requested that the Planning Division review the building permit application so this mistake is not repeated. Applicant/Owner Maurice Scraggs, 652 Halbach, stated that this process has been financially and personally difficult, causing great hardship. While he feels the process is unfair, he is willing to work with the Town to get it straightened out. Alix Lasalle, 1237 Timber Mountain Lane, attorney/broker, assisted the prospective buyer of this house. Her research found the title to be "free of all restrictions except for those of record." The Town failed to notify the owner of the zoning restriction. He purchased the property in good faith, and an after-market restriction was required, which has led to an unfair result. Moreau asked Attorney Kramer if there was a means for the Board to vote on a variance to remove all restrictions. Kramer answered that they only had the ability to grant the variance in front of them. Amending the current request was not an option. Nothing is written into the subdivision to indicate a restriction on the property: The deed restriction is written as a condition of approval on the rezoning. It is there but wouldn't necessarily show up in the title work. The owner, Attorney and Board discussed submitting an additional application to update or remove some or all restrictions. At the Applicant's request, it was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to continue the variance request to the January 7, 2025 meeting, giving the applicant time to revise his application. The motion passed 3-0. REPORTS: none With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:45 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 II Date: January 7, 2025 Application: Variance Request for Side (West) Setback 207 Evergreen Lane, Estes Park Karen Randinitis, 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): Suburban Estate Zoning District: Estate (E-1) Site Area: 0.20 Acres (+/- 8,723 SF) ☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE ☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO Objective: The Applicant requests approval of a variance to reduce the side setback along the west property line to eight feet (8') in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25') side setback required in the E-1 (Estate) Zone District under Section 4.3.C.4. (Table 4-2) of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). Background: The subject property is in the Mount View Park Subdivision and contains one single- family residence constructed in 1947. The 0.20-acre lot was created in 1948 from the easterly 62’ of Lot 7. The lot was rezoned to E-1 (Estate) in 2000 with the adoption of the current Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) and is legally nonconforming to dimensional standards. The 1992 Estes Park Zoning Map shows the property was previously zoned R-M Residential (Multi-Family) prior to the rezoning that took place in 2000. (Attachment 3). 6 2 E-1 (Estate) zoning requires a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre, 100’ minimum lot width, and 25’ setbacks front, side, and rear. The existing home encroaches into the side setbacks that were imposed on the property over 50 years after construction. The home is approximately 15.5’ from the west side setback and 4’ from the east side setback (Attachment 4). The 25’ side setbacks required in the E-1 zoning district leave a very narrow 12’ wide strip of developable space on the lot, limiting the reasonable addition of permitted accessory uses and amenities in the Applicant’s backyard (Attachment 7). Existing Conditions - Front Variance Description The Applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced side setback along the west property line to eight feet (8') in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25') side setback required in the E-1 (Estate) Zone District (Attachment 5). The Applicant proposes to place a pre-constructed 36 square-foot sauna adjacent to the back porch, in the area of the proposed reduced setback. The sauna will be screened from view by the existing landscaped area along the west side of the home (Attachment 6). 7 3 Proposed Site Plan 8 4 Proposed Location of Sauna (grey rectangle) 9 5 Location and Context: The 0.20-acre lot is located at 207 Evergreen Lane, approximately 600’ west of the intersection of Evergreen Lane and MacGregor Avenue (Devils Gulch Road). The property abuts the southern border of the MacGregor Ranch in unincorporated Larimer County. The subject property and adjacent properties are zoned E-1 (Estate). The majority of the properties in the Mountain View Park Subdivision are legally nonconforming, having been previously zoned R-M Residential (Multi-Family) prior to the 2000 EPDC adoption. Vicinity Map Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Comprehensive Plan (2022) Zone Uses Subject Site Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential North Natural Resource Conservation & Parks Unincorporated Larimer County MacGregor Ranch South Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential East Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Undeveloped West Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential 10 6 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 exceptionally and uncommonly small and narrow for E-1 zoning. The property ranks as the 2nd smallest E-1 zoned lot in Estes Park. The size of the lot, and the required 25’ 11 7 setbacks, has resulted in practical difficulty for the Applicant to add reasonable improvements and amenities to enhance the enjoyment of the backyard. 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 the proposed sauna. However, the addition of a sauna to the backyard is a minor, semi-permanent amenity with little to no impact on the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance request for an eight feet (8') side setback in lieu of twenty-five feet (25') is substantial. The proposed sauna is not substantial. 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 approval of the variance and sauna placement. The majority of the homes were built prior to the E-1 rezoning and subsequent 25’ setback requirement. Setback encroachment is typical in the neighborhood. Additionally, the sauna will be placed toward the rear of the home and screened by existing landscaping, causing no substantial detriment to adjoining properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The placement of the sauna will have no impact on existing public services, including water and sewer. Utilities are located on the east side. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Applicant purchased the property in 2006 without the knowledge that small accessory structures could not be placed within setbacks. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The proposed sauna could be located within the 25’ setbacks, in the 12’ wide strip of developable area in the backyard. However, the Applicant 12 8 specifically chose the proposed location for privacy, screening from the adjacent property, and access from the existing back porch. 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 is the least deviation from the 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 sauna is a permitted unlisted use or structure in the E-1 (Estate) zoning district pursuant to § 5.2.B.1.b. 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. No concerns were received. If the variance is approved and a building permit for the sauna is applied for, the Building Division will complete a formal review. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, several inquiries were received. None of the inquiries expressed opposition to the proposed variance request. ● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on December 13, 2024. 13 9 ● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on December 20, 2024. ● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Advantages This variance would allow the Applicant to add a detached sauna to their property and enhance the enjoyment of the backyard. Disadvantages There are no known disadvantages of the variance to allow a reduced side setback of eight feet (8') in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25') side setback required in the E-1 (Estate) Zone District. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with setbacks consistent with the Site Plan (Attachment 5). Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Little or none. Sample Motions I move to approve the variance request for an eight-foot (8') side setback along the west property line for the subject property addressed as 207 Evergreen Lane in the Town of Estes Park, with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to approve the variance request for an eight-foot (8') side setback along the west property line for the subject property addressed as 207 Evergreen Lane 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]. Attachments 1. Application 2. Statement of Intent 3. 1992 Zoning Map (cropped) 4. Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) 5. Site Plan (ILC with notation) 6. Proposed Development Conceptual 7. 25’ Setback Depiction 14 15 16 17 207 Evergreen Lane, Side Yard Variance Request - Statement of Intent We are asking for a variance for the side setback to 8 feet. Our house was built in 1947 and according to the title work the land was subdivided in 1948 from our neighbor’s parcel creating the .2 acre lot we have today, despite being zoned E-1. This all happened well before the zoning and land use codes of today. Our parcel is zoned E1 yet is only 8,723 square feet. The side setbacks for E1 are 25 feet. With the setbacks of today, we have a 12 foot strip of land that runs down the middle of the property which would be considered outside of the zoning districts setbacks. Add that to the 25 foot rear setback, our backyard has a rectangle of approximately 420 square feet of non-setback land that we can place a shed, hot tub, and sauna upon based on current land use codes. This set back is not conducive to a lot of this size and makes no practical sense. - see document labeled “allowable Setback Image based on current setbacks” Both sides of our house are well within the setback which leaves no wiggle room for any enjoyable amenity on our land without a variance. Our home is 15’6” from the property line to the west, and 4’ from the eastern property line. The best location for a 36 square foot sauna would be right next to our back porch on the west. You’ll find several photos of said location in the document labeled “development plan”. Standard for Review: 1) As stated above, our parcel is zoned E1 yet is only 8,723 square feet with side setbacks of 25 feet. Our home is 15’6” from the property line to the west and 4’ from the eastern property line. 2) a) Please see the document labeled “allowable Setback Image based on current setbacks” which shows the allowable non-setback land that runs down the middle of our backyard based on the current setbacks in conjunction with our parcel. The 36sf sauna along the side of the house has the least impact. b) We are requesting an 8’ variance on the west side of our property line. You can see in the document labeled “county aerial map with sauna noted in blue” that the sauna location is not next to any buildings in our neighbor’s lot or in the next neighbor’s lot. I share this to show that the area isn’t bogged down with buildings. c) As noted in the development plan and document labeled “county aerial map with sauna noted in blue”, this isn’t something you’ll see from the road as well as it’ll actually block the bright headlights of an uphill neighbor. We have 3 neighbors on the west side of our house. Two homes are vacation rentals and the other is a second home owner that comes up about 20 times a year. d) There are no utilities on this side of the home, they are on the east side. e) I was unaware that saunas as well as sheds and hot tubs couldn’t be within a setback. I’ve talked with countless people in our community and they are unaware as well. Since these items aren’t fixed to the land like a garage is and can be moved when you move 18 and buy a new home, this code isn’t clear and is not common knowledge. Because a sauna isn’t called out specifically in the code, I asked the question to the planning department. We find ourselves in this situation requesting a variance for one as a result. f) One can see that our setbacks do not fit with the zoning for our parcel. 3) Our sauna location is quite specific in our request. See development plan document 4) NA 5) We have chosen the smallest sauna (2-4 person) we can find, thus the impact to the property and our neighbors surrounding it would be minor. 6) We believe this to be a permitted use under section 5.2 in the table label 5-1 along with swimming pools and hot tubs. 19 20 21 36sf 6ft 6ft 22 Photo taken from the neighbors driveway, looking at the west side and back yard Grey box is the sauna location, noting no practical disturbance to their view of the mountains. Best location on lot, the west side of house next to the porch 36sf sauna is the grey box to approx height and depth 23 Looking out from patio to neighbors Will block sun, wind, and headlights from neighbors View from the front of the house, shrubs will block from the street. Of note, our property line is the wood pole in the front left of the picture. 24 Showing exit to east side of side yard, there is a large slope the house sits on The bottom of these steps is inches from the edge of our property line. The east side of our house to the property line is 4’. Saunas that we have been looking at for 2-4 people are not made that small. The east side of the house shows the slope noted above. The timber wall sits on the property line, no room for a sauna. 25 Front of the house, the west is on level land, the garage is on the east side. Another view of the front, the home is a raised ranch. Amazing editing skills of what the idea could be. 26 This image depicts the allowable placement of any accessory use structures based on the setbacks of E1 zoning within our lot. The yellow box is approximately 420sf and squares within include a shed, hot tub, and sauna. The red lines are the property boundaries. The dark blue square in the lower left corner is the 36sf future sauna placement per variance approval. 27 28 Community Development Memo To: Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director Date: January 7, 2025 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: This item was originally heard by the Board of Adjustment at their December 3, 2024, hearing. At that hearing, the Board of Adjustment continued the item so the applicant and staff could further discuss the applicability of the required deed restriction. Subsequent to the Board meeting, staff and the applicant discussed the feasibility of removing the deed restriction requirement from the subject property. It was determined that since the Board of Trustees placed the deed restriction on the property in 2003, it would take formal Trustee action to remove the restriction. Given the uncertainty of this action’s outcome, and the additional time and expense involved with submitting the request for removal, the applicant decided to proceed with his initial request for variance, with one modification to the deed restriction’s term, as noted later herein. 29 2 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. 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 30 3 Vicinity Map SUBJECT PROPERTY 31 4 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 for 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 The applicant is requesting variances to the above-noted attainable and workforce housing provisions applicable to properties located within the R-1 (Residential) zoning 32 5 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, revised from the original request heard by the Board of Adjustment in December, would reduce the term of the deed restriction from 50 years to 10 years. The term was initially 20 years when the Mangelsen subdivision was approved in 2004 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 early this 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, such as having a co-signer, be kept separate and not a part of the income determination. The appeal of this staff interpretation would add clarifying language to the subject 33 6 property’s deed 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, as the owner 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 mutually 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 34 7 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 moderately substantial but 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, 35 8 works with the Town on the deed restriction language and processing. As such, 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. 36 9 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 Comments from the Estes Park Housing Authority are attached. Public Notice For both the December and January hearings, staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. To date, 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 & December 13, 2024. ● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on November 15, 2024 & December 20, 2024. ● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. ● Sign posted on property by applicant. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Public interest has been minimal. To date, there has been no public opposition to this variance request. Sample Motions I move to approve the variance 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]. 37 10 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 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 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 45 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) 46 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. 47 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 48