Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-03-16 - Special MeetingRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 16, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Don Darling, Members Pete Smith, Wayne Newsom, John Lynch, and Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair Darling, Members Smith, and Moreau Also Attending: Planner Carrie McCool, Interim Community Development Director Karen Cumbo, Town Attorney Greg White, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Members Newsom and Lynch Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately six people in attendance. There were two members absent, but a quorum was present. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Special Meeting, February 22, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. LOT 52 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 51, 52 & 53, BLOCK 10, CARRIAGE HILLS 4th; 1117 Whispering Pines Drive Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The variance requested is from Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.6.E.1.a(1) which requires all buildings and accessory structures to be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. The applicant request is to allow a deck that was destroyed in the 2013 flood be rebuilt entirely in the setback. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 March 16, 2016 Director Chilcott stated the standards for review are in EVDC Section 3.6.C. The existing house on the lot and the decks were located within the 30-foot river setback prior to the 2013 flood. As a result of the flood, the Fish Creek channel migrated to be approximately five feet closer to the house. During the flood, the Kane residence was significantly undermined by the water, making the foundation unstable, and a large portion of the deck was destroyed. Soon after the flood, the foundation was stabilized with fill material and the main structure, including most of the deck, was repaired. The Kane’s are now seeking to repair the remaining portion of the deck with a few modifications to the design. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances exist…: Staff found the home on-site is classified as a legal non-conforming structure as a large portion of it is located within the 30-foot stream corridor setback. The previous deck was also considered part of the non-conforming structure. Any building addition on the Southeast, East or Northeast portion of the home will be contained entirely within the 30-foot setback. Strict compliance with Code standards would prevent the remainder of the destroyed deck from being rebuilt. Post-flood, the annual high-water mark has shifted westward roughly five feet, further restricting future development of the site. 2. Practical difficulty…: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the home, as it stands today, does not have the corner section of decking attached. The development proposal will include concrete sidewalks/patio and new decking along the Southeast, East and Northeast sides of the home. The single-family home use on the site may continue without a variance being granted. The new additions do not affect the use of the site or access to the home. b. Whether the variance is substantial: Staff found the variance is substantial in that it would allow deck support piers to be located downslope of the streambank upper edge. The farthest piers would be located on the post-flood fill material. Granting this variance involves risks from floodwaters and geologic hazards to both the property owner and neighbors up- and downstream. There is great streambank erosion potential at this site. 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 found the single-family character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with this proposal. In the occurrence that another flood arises on Fish Cree, neighboring properties may be impacted. Debris from damaged structures may potentially fall into the river channel and dam up or RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 March 16, 2016 alter water flows and/or cause damage to neighboring properties. The development proposal includes a gas firepit on the deck area. If a flood damages or destroys the deck, including the firepit, the gas line servicing the firepit would be severed, thereby posing a significant fire hazard. Flood hazard mitigation efforts can be taken to lessen the risk of future damage or destruction which include: (1) maximizing streambank stabilization using bioengineering methods to restore natural stream and ecological functions while protecting existing and potential future structures from further streambank erosion; (2) removing the firepit from the proposed deck area to mitigate potential fire hazards. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found the approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found the EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available to the public. The applicant built the home in 2002. Stream setback requirements were in effect at the time. The building permit for the home was approved which created a legal non-conforming structure. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found no deck expansions or sidewalk/patio construction may occur at this specific location of the site without a variance. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found a variance for this proposal is the only option to achieve the desired outcome. 4. In granting such variances, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff is not recommending approval or disapproval of this variance request. If it is approved, staff recommends removing the gas firepit from the deck design. Also, staff encourages the Board of Adjustment to take into account the comments made by Tina Kurtz, Environmental Planner III. The memo addresses future risk potential at this site and potential mitigation efforts. Board and Staff Discussion Ms. Chilcott stated staff does not have a recommendation of approval of denial of this application. If the Kanes had applied for a building permit and began construction within a year of the 2013 flood, staff would have had the ability to approve the building permit and a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 March 16, 2016 variance would not have been required. At that time, staff would have given approval of the plan review to rebuild the piers in the setback. Because of the time lapse, staff no longer has the ability to approve the rebuilding of the deck and the Board of Adjustment is now the decision-making body. Ms. Chilcott stated there have been numerous discussions with administrators of both the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, as well as planning staff from both jurisdictions. The proposed deck is larger than what was originally there. The County Planning staff stated they would have approved the proposed deck at staff level, if presented to them within the one-year period following the 2013 flood, even with the modifications. Ms. Chilcott stated what staff determined from the review is the home was built out of compliance with the setback criteria. It was not identified by the property owner, builder, or staff that the structure would be in the setback after construction. This home is considered by planning staff to be a nonconforming property. Public Comment Bruce Kane/applicant stated their home was not substantially damaged during the 2013 flood, so they were able to rebuild with assistance from FEMA. First, they stabilized the foundation by the end of September. The permanent foundation repair was completed in December, 2013. A small portion of the deck was rebuilt in early 2014, which is what they have now. They started the process of rebuilding the home before the one year time lapse. He interpreted to code as they would have three years to complete the rebuild. He did not understand a permit was required. Mr. Kane stated the stream bank consists of an armored rock area on top of a membrane. In November 2014, a temporary sewer line was installed, and replaced with the permanent line in the spring of 2015. He stated the creek could not be moved back to the original location within the one year period. The discussions revolving around this issue have been ongoing since October 2015. Thomas Beck/applicant’s architect stated the only part of the deck that is larger is the addition of the stairs on the north side. The stairs were added and the upper right corner has been redesigned to be further from the creek. Mr. Kane added that before the flood, the river was at least 15 feet further away from the house than it is today; however, he disagrees the home was built in the setback. Regarding the gas firepit, Mr. Beck stated he would recommend a type of hookup that has a quick disconnect next to the house. In case the deck was destroyed again, the flow of gas would be shut off at the house. Member Darling was concerned about the negative impact on neighbors during a future flood event. Mr. Kane stated he thinks there is enough armoring along the bank that any future flooding would be directed to the east side of the bank rather than the west side near his RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 March 16, 2016 home. He noted the Larimer County Floodplain Manager, Eric Tracy, has given his approval to rebuild. Joe Coop/Van Horn Engineering stated the geo-fabric that was installed on the stream bank would make erosion a slower process during a future flood event, and he thought the same geo-fabric would be installed on the east side of the streambank during the restoration projects. Mr. Beck stated Larimer County extended their post-flood rebuild period to three years, while the town kept its standard of one year. There have been many agencies involved in post- flood recovery in the immediate area of the Kane property, which has delayed the project. The Kane’s have been diligently rebuilding since the flood. Merle Moore/county resident stated he is a neighbor that was very aware of what happened at the Kane residence during the 2013 flood. He was actually in the Kane house when the deck was torn off by floodwater. He stated the main cause of damage to the Kane property was the failure of the culvert at Whispering Pines Drive. This failure caused the excess water to flow down Fish Creek Road. There was a very heavy willow cover on the edges of the creek, which he thinks washout because the plugged culvert redirected the water to the west side. Another culvert failed upstream at Rambling Drive. He thinks there would not have been any water issues at the Kane residence if the culverts would have contained the flows. Conditions of Approval Recommended by the Board 1. A quick breakaway gas line connection to the firepit shall be required. 2. Following construction, an As-Built survey shall be completed by a registered land surveyor and submitted to the Community Development Department. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Darling) to approve the variance request with the findings recommended by staff and two conditions of approval recommended by the Board and the Department and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. REPORTS 1. Director Chilcott reported Planner Phil Kleisler has accepted a position with the City of Loveland. His last day will be March 31, 2016. He will be greatly missed, and we wish him well in his new endeavor. 2. Director Chilcott reported a new brochure regarding the Town’s flood mitigation efforts is now available. Copies will be provided to all members of the Town’s Boards and Commissions. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 March 16, 2016 ____________________________________ Don Darling, Chair ____________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary