HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-04-05
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
April 5, 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, Newsom, Lynch, and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Audem Gonzales, Interim Community
Development Director Karen Cumbo, Recording Secretaries Thompson
and Webb
Absent: None
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately 5
people in attendance. 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
Approval of minutes from the March 16, 2016 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented the motion passed unanimously.
3. LOT 47, LITTLE VALLEY 2nd FILING; 1545 HUMMINGBIRD DRIVE
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance to Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3 Table 4-2 which requires a 50-foot setbacks in
the RE-Rural Estate zone district. The applicants, Don and Kathy Townsend, initially
requested a 33-foot front yard setback. After closer inspection, it was determined the
setback distance was calculated from the middle of Hummingbird Drive instead of the
property line, so the actual request should be for a 20-foot setback. Moving forward,
Planner Gonzales will provide his staff report based on a 20-foot setback request. The
applicant desires to construct a proposed detached garage, approximately 700 square
feet in size.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
April 5, 2016
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to affected agencies, a legal notice
was published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property owners were notified by
mail. Staff received two written public comments in opposition to the variance request.
The general tone of the comments was the request did not comply with the Little Valley
covenants.
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff findings, as follows:
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
The property is zoned RE-Rural Estate, which has a minimum setback on all sides
of 50-feet. The lot is approximately 2.13 acres in size, which does not meet the 2.5-
acre minimum lot size for the zone district. The subdivision was platted in 1968,
before adoption of the EVDC. The plat was created before steep slope provisions,
therefore lots were not required to be adjusted in size. This reduces the buildable
area for the lot due to the steep slopes present. The applicant is proposing building
the garage between the home and the road, to be able to utilize the existing drive,
which they feel would be the most practical.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The property currently holds a single-family dwelling, which can continue to be
used. However, steep slopes and the required setbacks hinder additions and
new construction at the site. While there is an area on the site where the
garage could be built without requesting a variance, it is farther down the
mountain and impractical for use by the existing dwelling.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The variance is substantial. The proposed garage would be entirely within the
EVDC 50-foot setback. Local covenants require a 75-foot setback. The Little
Valley HOA granted the applicant approval to place the garage at this location
in December 2015.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
This proposal would not alter the single-family character of the neighborhood,
and adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. Two neighbors provided
written comment in opposition to this variance, citing the HOA standard of a 75-
foot front setback. Staff conducted several site visits to the neighborhood and
found several buildings built within the 75-foot HOA front setback and within the
50-foot EVDC setback. This request is in line with what has already been built
within the neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
April 5, 2016
Staff found the variance requested would have no adverse effect on public
services such as utility lines, drainage or roads.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
The EVDC was adopted in 2000 and was readily available to the public. The
applicant purchased the property in 2014. RE-Rural Estate zone district setback
requirements and the HOA covenants were in effect at the time.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
A detached garage could be built at a different location on the site that complies
with the EVDC 50-foot setback and the 75-foot covenant setback. It would
require professional engineering for the steep slopes and would not be a
practical location in relation to the dwelling.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief:
Staff found building at this location has little effect on the neighbors and aims to
make a practical decision in the placement of the garage.
4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
The applicant provided to staff an email thread from the HOA president that
documents variance approval for the garage. Staff would like to see the actual
letter of approval sent to the applicant. Staff recommends the BOA require the
letter within one month of this variance approval.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance with no conditions
of approval.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated that it is not the purview of the staff or Board to ensure
neighborhood covenants are enforced. However, staff feels that if they are aware of a
covenant, decisions are made to be in line with that.
Planner Gonzales stated that the house was built in 1974 before the EVDC was adopted.
There were covenants at the time when the house was being built.
Member Newsom stated this request is similar to other requests in the Estes Valley with
steep terrain, particularly the Windcliffe subdivision. There are lots in the Estes Valley that
would be considered unbuildable if the code was followed without exceptions.
Planner Gonzales stated the EVDC says a driveway cannot exceed a 12% grade. For this
property, if the garage were to be placed in a different location, it would require a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
April 5, 2016
meandering driveway that would take up half the lot to reach a location further from the
dwelling.
Public Comment
Kathy Townsend/applicant stated an alternate location for the proposed garage was
determined to be unfeasible due to the grade and added expense. She stated she and
her husband purchased the home a year ago, and have since made improvements to
bring the home up to the high standards of the neighborhood. The proposed garage
would be built to the same higher standard as the improved home. Because a portion of
the home was built lower than grade, the proposed garage will sit higher than the main
floor of the home when built at grade. Ms. Townsend stated the plans were recently
changed, with the garage being turned to allow more room for stairs going down to the
house from the garage. She stated additional room was needed in order to meet the
requirements for stair geometry. Chair Darling stated that it is difficult to approve an
application if the plans are going to change.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated that the board is approving or denying the setback variance, not
where the building is to be located within that setback. Chair Darling stated he was
concerned about problems down the road in regards to lack of information regarding
building placement within the setback. As a contractor, he has had to produce plans with
the lot surveyed to show the exact setbacks and where the proposed changes would be in
regards to those setbacks. Member Moreau stated he would like to see the architectural
drawings for the proposed structure. The goal is to protect the applicant and the
neighbors. Member Lynch stated he was concerned about the two letters in opposition
and that by granting a blanket acceptance it leaves it open to rebuttal. Planner Gonzales
showed an image of the concept of what the exterior of the proposed garage would look
like.
Ms. Townsend stated she would be willing to stay with the original proposed location if it
would mean the variance would be approved.
Interim Director Cumbo stated that the applicant is in a difficult position as her builder will
want to design to what has been approved. The Board may request additional information
to make an informed decision. However, she reminded the Board that this is a setback
variance request, not a building permit approval.
There was a discussion among the Board about the determining factors for a variance
request. Member Newsom wondered whether or not the additional information requested
(i.e. architectural drawings and elevations) was relevant to the variance request. Member
Lynch stated there are other homes in the area that are close to the road. He agreed that
they are generally given floor elevations and other dimensions to help see the scope of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
April 5, 2016
the project. He felt the Board would be leaving themselves open to rebuttal since the
plans have changed, especially since there have been objections to the project. Chair
Darling stated the Board should be provided with enough information to make an informed
decision. The Board of Adjustment works to grant relief so a project can be successful.
Usually, the project is fully designed prior to coming to the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Townsend stated she was relying on her builder to provide guidance regarding the
variance, and did not realize additional information was needed.
Member Moreau stated the additional information he would want to see on the plans
would include the precise location, floor elevation of the garage compared to the existing
dwelling, and the highest point of the garage roof. Member Smith stated e would add the
correct setback distances to the list. Chair Darling recommended continuing the item to
the next regularly scheduled meeting, which would be May 3, 2016.
The applicant agreed to continue the application to the next meeting.
Public comment closed.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to continue the variance request at 1545
Hummingbird Drive to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 3, 2016, and
the motion passed 4-1 with Member Newsom voting against the motion.
4. 1st RESUBDIVISION, BUENO VISTA TERRACE; PORTION OF TOWN-OWNED
MORAINE/WEIST PARKING LOT, NO OFFICIAL ADDRESS
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance to allow a 30-ft
microcell antenna tower to be located in a “no parking” section of the Moraine/Weist
Parking Lot for Verizon Wireless. The standard in the EVDC to be varied is Section 5.1.
(T)(2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Standards to allow for building the microcell
on a site that is not one of the accepted areas (school, hospital, police station, public
utility substation or high-tension power line easement).
Planner McCool orientated the Board to the site and where the proposed tower would be
within the existing lot. The parking lot is highly used. The “no parking” area is steep with a
unique configuration. The applicant would like to paint the tower dark green that is in line
with the equipment in the area. There would be an equipment enclosure constructed of
cinder block to match the nearby trash enclosure. An existing wooden utility/light pole sits
within five feet of the proposed site.
Planner McCool stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
April 5, 2016
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
This is a unique situation, with steep slopes, limited space for utility stations within
our community, etc. The proposed site is in close proximity to downtown, is in a
public parking lot, and is a fair distance from residential uses. This makes it a more
appropriate location for such a use than other sites in town. The installation of the
tower will benefit not only residents, but guests and emergency personnel. Staff
finds it is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The proposed tower would be located on an unused portion of the parking lot
that is not delineated for parking. It is marked with the words “No Parking” since
its unusual configuration cannot accommodate parking spaces. No other use is
proposed for the site and its unusual configuration limits proposed uses for the
site.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The public parking lot shares the public/quasi-public use of sites where
installations of such towers are allowed. Staff finds this variance request is not
substantial.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
The site is buffered by Town-owned land. It is in the downtown area with
significant distance from residential areas to the west. The materials proposed
are compatible with materials already in use at the site. It is consistent with
existing types of uses in the immediate area.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer;
As an unmanned facility there is no need for water and sewer. There is no
impact to delivery of public services. The applicant will build their tower and
enclosure on the existing asphalt so there is no change in grading or drainage.
The proposed tower will improve cellular service for Verizon customers. The
project was routed to all of the Town agencies. The only comment was from
Public Works, who was concerned about the impact to vehicle sight distances,
vehicle turning radius and overall traffic circulation in the parking lot if the
structure was built. The applicant provided revised plans March 28th, and
provided more information to Public Works. They are still concerned about
longer vehicles and tight situations. Staff recommends adding a condition of
approval that the applicant work with the Public Works Department to address
their concerns in regards to traffic circulation.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
April 5, 2016
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
The Town owns the property and the applicant will lease the land. Therefore,
this review criterion is not applicable to this variance request.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
There are limited sites in town for the applicant to build a facility as proposed.
The applicant worked for several years to find a location that would work. This
variance is the only method to move forward.
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 finds the applicant’s request for a variance is due to a one-time need for a
tower that can provide coverage in the downtown area. It is unlikely another
situation would arise requiring a similar variance in downtown, due to the unique
characteristics of cellular network signal dispersion. Staff finds that this situation is
unique.
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…
The variance request will not result in a reduction in the size of lots contained in an
existing or proposed subdivision.
5. Is the variance the least deviation that will afford the applicant relief?
The applicant has demonstrated that all other locations were not available and,
therefore, this is the least deviation necessary to afford relief.
6. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a
use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited…
The variance requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted
in the Commercial Downtown zone district. One corner of the leased area and
enclosure will be located within the Residential zone district, where this use is not
expressly prohibited.
7. In granting such a variance, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions
as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the
standard so varied or modified;
Staff has included two possible conditions of approval for the Board’s consideration
relating to the site circulation requirements received from Public Works and access
and utility easement dedication. The applicant would dedicate and record all utility
and access easements prior to building permit submittal. This would ensure the
easements are accurate and remain in place.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
April 5, 2016
Planner McCool stated that the board has four options for this variance. They could
approve with no conditions, approve with conditions, deny the variance or continue the
hearing.
Staff and Member Discussion
Member Moreau inquired about any intention to extend or alter other utilities to this area.
Planner McCool stated staff received no comments from the various utilities concerning
such an intent.
Public Comment
Barbara Grant, Kevin Brown/Verizon/applicants stated Verizon currently has two facilities
in our area, one on Prospect Mountain and one northeast of Estes Park. The tower has to
be 30 feet tall to provide the best coverage without requiring a height variance. The desire
is to cover the downtown area in order to get the maximum coverage on the west end of
downtown. To accommodate concerns about the turning radius requested from Public
Works, they shaved 3 feet off the lease area and expanded the vehicle driving lanes to
approximately 22.5 feet. Public Works may want a little more room, and the applicant is
happy to provide that, stating it needs to be a safe and viable parking lot first and
foremost. Bollards will be installed to protect the structure. The Town and Verizon
Wireless will enter into a 15-year lease agreement, and all easements will be recorded as
part of the lease. If a new lease is not negotiated at the end of the 15-year period, the
applicant has a certain time limit to remove their equipment.
Ginger Harris/property owner of nearest residential lot stated she was concerned about
the circumference of the tower. It was noted by the applicant that it will be four feet in
diameter and approximately five feet taller than the top of the existing utility pole. It will be
very similar to the temporary tower behind the Century Link building except painted green.
The lease space (enclosure) will be five feet from the current utility pole, while the
proposed tower would be a little farther to the north. Ms. Harris was concerned about the
tower location being moved to a different specific location within the proposed area, in
order to satisfy the Public Works Department. Planner McCool stated it is possible the
Public Works Department could require some adjustment of the location.
Interim Director Cumbo stated what has been presented is the site plan that works from
an engineering standpoint, and encompasses other agency’s concerns. There may be an
adjustment of 1 to 2 feet for the traffic lanes but the location will remain the same.
The applicant, Ms. Grant, stated the tower will be owned by Verizon Wireless, and will
improve reception for Verizon customers. However, 9-1-1 calls may also be directed
through this tower. There is room on the tower for other venders to lease space for their
equipment. There will be no other utilities involved. Power will be pulled from the nearby
utility pole. There is the possibility to add future technology (dark fiber, centralized
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9
April 5, 2016
equipment) at this location, but that is several years away. The tower will be connected to
fiber optics like other cell towers.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
None
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated
March 25, 2016
2. Dedicate all proposed access and utility easements as depicted on the topographic
survey (Sheet LS1) and Site Plan document (Sheet Z1) of the development review
plan set prior to building permit submittal
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the requested variance
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the Board, and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS
a. Interim Director Comb reported Planner Phil Kleisler resigned, effective March
31, 2016 to accept a position with the City of Loveland. Community
Development will post his position next week. In the meantime, Planner McCool
and her staff from McCool Development Solutions are helping with the work
load.
b. Interim Director Comb reported on the 2015 International Building Code
adoption process. CBO Birchfield presented the significant changes and local
amendments to the Town Board on March 22nd. There was overall support for
the codes. The Town Board request language be clarified in regards to
sprinkling buildings. The revisions will be made and brought back to the Town
Board next week for adoption. The effective date will be June 1, 2016.
c. Interim Director Comb reported on the vacation home rental code amendment
process. County Commissioners and Board of Trustees approved two different
motions at their joint meeting last week. Under a shared development code, this
is not the ideal resolution. Another joint meeting will be scheduled to try to work
out their differences. The key issue is whether or not to place a cap on the
number of vacation home rentals in the Estes Valley. Staff will be providing
additional information to the Boards prior to the next joint meeting. In regards to
HOAs seeking to control vacation home rentals in their neighborhoods, which
regulation is more strict is the one that applies. Removing vacation home
rentals in the A and A-1 Accommodation zone districts from the cap would allow
the cap to just address vacation home rentals located in residential zone
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10
April 5, 2016
districts, which is the main concern. There is a use-by-right for vacation home
rentals in residential zone districts, but we could also have a use-by-right with
regulations.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
___________________________________
Don Darling, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary