HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-07-12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
July 12, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, John
Lynch, one vacant position (County)
Attending: Members Lynch, Moreau, and Smith
Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Recording Secretary
Thompson
Absent: Member Newsom
Member Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five 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 dated June 7, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to continue the Consent Agenda to the
next Board of Adjustment meeting due to lack of a quorum (Moreau abstaining) and
the motion passed 3-0.
3. LOT 24, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 553 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Maxwell Inn
Variance Requests
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Peter and
Dana Maxwell, owners of Maxwell Inn, requested variances from EVDC Section
4.4, Table 4-5, Footnote 6, which requires a 25-foot setback in the A–
Accommodations zone district when the property abuts a residential zone district
boundary. The request is to allow an 18.5 foot setback. The second variance is to
EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, Density and Dimensional Standards for the
Nonresidential Zone Districts which requires maximum lot coverage of 50% for A–
Accommodations zone districts. The request is to allow impervious lot coverage of
62.7%. Planner Gonzales explained the purpose of the variance is to allow
construction of a 4-unit structure on the site, which currently contains 17 units. The
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
July 12, 2016
site is within the Town limits. Proposed construction includes one existing unit to
be converted to a laundry facility and accessible bathroom. A separate structure
would contain four units, bringing the total number of units to 20, which is the
maximum density allowed for this property. The subject property is currently
grandfathered in with 62.2% impervious lot coverage and the applicant would like
to increase that by 0.5%. Planner Gonzales stated the proposed new building
would be on the east portion of the site, and approximately 67 square feet of this
building would encroach into the setback.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies.
Notices were mailed to adjacent property owners and a legal notice was published
in the local newspaper. No significant comments were received by affected
agencies, and no written public comments were received from the public.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Setback: The existing accommodations building was constructed in 1946 in the
middle of the property. Additional development space is limited. Existing parking
areas further limit the available space to develop. The site has many existing
constraints that limit the location for further development. The variance request
would relieve practical difficulties associated with developing on an existing site.
Lot Coverage: The existing impervious lot coverage is 62.2%. The Estes Valley
Development Code required a maximum of 50% impervious coverage. The
applicant has proposed a plan that removes 1,407 square feet of impervious
coverage by altering the parking area but keeping the appropriate amount of
parking spaces. The new 4-unit accommodations building along with new concrete
walks add 1,590 square feet of impervious coverage to the site. The actual gain in
impervious coverage as proposed is 0.5%. Staff feels this project meets the intent
of Code and the applicant has made an effort to reduce the legal non-conforming
lot coverage percentage while trying to obtain the permitted amount of
accommodations units.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Setback: Only 17 of the 20 units in the main building are being used for
occupancy. The remaining 3 units were repurposed in 2013 but are very small
and are located underground with little daylight. The applicant has proposed to
build a separate 4-unit structure to offer modernized hotel rooms for guests. Of
the existing 17 units, one unit is proposed to be converted into a guest
laundry/bathroom, bringing the total number of units on-site up to 20. Staff feels
that full utilization of the allowed density is the most practical use of the site.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
July 12, 2016
Lot Coverage: The property is grandfathered in with 62.2% impervious lot
coverage. The applicant has made an aggressive effort to reduce impervious
coverage while incorporating the new ~1,100 square foot building. The gain in
impervious coverage is 0.5%.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Setback: The variance request would make the new side setback 18.5 feet in
lieu of the 25-feet required. This calculates out to be a 26% variance. The
threshold for a Board of Adjustment Variance versus a Planning Commission
Minor Modification is any request over 25%. Staff does not feel this request is
substantial, with approximately 67 square feet of the building to be located
within the setback.
Lot Coverage: The actual increase in impervious coverage from existing
conditions is 0.5%. The applicant has proposed a two-story building to minimize
the footprint of development on the site. The new plan improves the existing
conditions by removing a significant amount of paving from the front setback.
The proposed 62.7% impervious lot coverage is a 12.7% deviation from Code,
which would require a Planning Commission Minor Modification or a Board of
Adjustment Variance. Staff feels this request is minor.
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:
Setback: The property to the east consists of residential condominiums that
were constructed in the 1990’s/2000. The driveway for the condominiums
abutting the Maxwell Inn property is located on the western edge, serving as a
buffer between the proposed accommodations building and the condos. The
condos are situated 30-40 feet from the west property line. With the Maxwell
Inn’s proposed new side setback of 18.5-feet, the condos would roughly be 48-
58 feet from the new building. The approved development plan for the Maxwell
Inn has required a district landscape buffer between the properties. The
applicant has proposed to concentrate the plantings east of the proposed
building to further buffer the use. Staff does not feel the essential character of
the neighborhood would be altered or suffer detriment as a result of the
variance.
Lot Coverage: Again, the property has been operating with 62.2% impervious
lot coverage for several years. A 0.5% increase would not substantially alter the
neighborhood in any way. Drainage and runoff would not be affected. The
approved development plan and drainage study have concluded there is very
little to no impact on drainage on the site.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4
July 12, 2016
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Setback and Lot Coverage: Approval would have no effect on public services
such as water and sewer. All public service locations were approved with the
development plan.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Setback and Lot Coverage: The applicant purchased the property in 2013 and
decided to eliminate three (3) of the existing units due to their poor quality.
During the design and planning process of the new building, setback
regulations were in effect. The applicant has decided this plan is the best
approach to restoring the three (3) units.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Setback: The applicant has stated that it is impossible to create additional units
within the footprint of the existing building. The west side of the existing building
was analyzed and found not to be a practical location due to the creation of
conflicts with the caretaker’s unit, access would be cut off from other hotel
support areas, and there would be no direct access to parking. Also, including a
handicap unit at this location was found to be infeasible. A variance would be
the only process to achieve the proposal.
Lot Coverage: The increase of impervious coverage of 0.5%. An additional
reduction of 0.5% of impervious coverage could be explored. The applicant has
already reduced 1,407 square feet of impervious coverage on the site by
reconfiguring the parking area. The applicant has stated it is not possible to
further remove impervious coverage without sacrificing the area needed to
meet parking and drive standards, and to allow for emergency vehicle access
through the property.
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.
Setback and Lot Coverage: The conditions of this application are not general.
They are specific to this property, size and orientation.
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.
Setback and Lot Coverage: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of
lots is proposed by these variance requests.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
July 12, 2016
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Setback: Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining
parking spaces, replacing impervious coverage, pulling parking and paving out
of the front setback to the degree possible, maintaining clearances for
emergency vehicles, and minimizing the amount of variance necessary. The
level of variance requested is approximately 67 square feet, which staff finds to
be very minimal.
Lot Coverage: Again, staff finds a 12.7% deviation from Code to be a very
minimal request. A variance would represent the least deviation from Code that
will afford relief.
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 zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Setback and Lot Coverage: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or
prohibited use.
7. 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.
Setback and Lot Coverage: Staff recommends no conditions of approval
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request with
no recommended conditions. A survey has been completed. A staff-level
development plan was approved by staff to build the proposed structure at the site.
Member and Staff Discussion
Member Smith inquired about the parking requirement.
Public Comment
Joe Coop/applicant representative stated 25 parking spaces are proposed (two of
those will be inside a garage). The requirement is for 20 spaces. He stated parking
spaces are triggered by square footage.
Pete Maxwell/applicant was present and available for questions.
Member and Staff Discussion
Member Moreau recommended a setback certificate be submitted to the
Community Development Department as a condition of approval.
Condition of Approval
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
July 12, 2016
1. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate prepared by a registered land
surveyor shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance with the
findings and conditions presented and the motion passed 3-0 with one
absent and one vacancy.
A recess was called at 9:23 a.m., as Planner McCool was delayed due to traffic
conditions. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 a.m.
4. LOT 9, BLOCK 3, AMENDED WINDCLIFF ESTATES, 5TH FILING; 3323 Eiger
Trail; Newberg Residence Variance Requests
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The applicants are Andrew and Stephanie
Newberg. She stated there are three requests from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2,
which requires 25-foot setbacks from all property lines and a maximum height of 40
feet in the E-1–Estate zone district. The requests are to allow: (1) a seven (7) foot
setback from the east property line; (2) a 14 foot rear setback; and (3) a 2.2-foot height
variance over the 30-foot maximum.
Planner McCool stated the subject property is located in the Windcliff Estates
Subdivision, which has a mixture of lot sizes and configurations, steep topography and
lush vegetation. The typical lot in Windcliff is undersized for the zone district and has
an average slope of approximately 40%. Planner McCool stated the subject lot is long,
narrow, and undersized for lots in the E-1 zone district, where one acre is the
minimum lot size. This particular lot is 0.37 acres. The size of the lot makes it very
difficult to conform to the front and rear setback requirements. Planner McCool stated
the actual buildable area is 23 feet wide, with an average slope of 54%.
Planner McCool stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and notices
were mailed to adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local
newspaper. No comments from the public were received. Larimer County Engineering
staff sent comments dated June 21, 2016.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the lot is narrow and the steep slope, along with heavy vegetation,
presents challenges when planning the site layout. The lot is undersized for the
zone district at 0.37 acres. The average slope of the lot is 54%.
2. In determining “practical difficulty”:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
July 12, 2016
Staff found due to the steep slope, lot configuration, and limited buildable area,
a variance would most likely be required to build any single-family residence.
Applicant’s design minimizes the amount of the variances required.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the request is not substantial, given the physical constraints of this
lot.
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 design of the proposed single-family dwelling seeks to match
the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The preservation of trees on the
lot will minimize visual impact from development of this site.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Staff found the requested variances would not adversely affect public service
delivery. Larimer County Engineering provided comments as follows:
Grading for Infrastructure Right-of-Way Encroachment: The Larimer County
Engineer raised concerns regarding the encroachment of grading and
infrastructure in the Eiger Trail right-of-way and required the grading design be
revised so contours tie in within the property boundary. The applicant revised
the retaining walls and grading around the proposed house to stay out of the
Eiger Trail right-of-way. The proposed driveway enters from Eiger Trail, and
grading will be required within the right-of-way and the turnaround grading will
enter the right-of-way. While the applicant proposes grading for the
aforementioned items to be kept to a minimum to obtain safe grades and
slopes, the county’s comments regarding the requirement that grading for
infrastructure shall not encroach into the road right-of-way must be adhered to.
Turnaround and Parking with the Eiger Trail Right-of-Way: The Larimer County
Engineer requested confirmation that the orientation of the proposed garage is
such that the vehicles will be parked outside of the road right-of-way limits, with
space on the property to maneuver vehicles to exit onto Eiger Trail in a forward
manner. The applicant’s plan is to park inside the garage and on the west side
of the turnaround, as there is not 20 feet of space from the garage doors to the
right-of-way line. The applicant asserts the current drive and parking design
presents the most feasible design for this lot regarding access and parking, and
if the proposed dwelling is moved further west, a greater rear setback variance
would be required using more fill and higher retaining walls.
Historic Drainage Patterns: The Larimer County Engineer assumes any
improvements on the site would not adversely impact the drainage patterns or
create erosion problems in the area. A drainage plan will be required of the
applicant, to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineering Department.
Any disturbance of the site should be re-established to be equal to or better
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
July 12, 2016
than the preconstruction condition, and a native dry land see mix shall be used.
The applicant confirmed the flow pattern will be maintained and directed around
the proposed house. Erosion control and re-vegetation notes have been added
to the site plan. Staff found all comments from the County Engineering
Department shall be adequately addressed prior to issuance of a building
permit.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff was not provided information as to what knowledge the applicant had of
these requirements at the time of purchase. However, given that multiple
homes have been built on surrounding properties, the owner must have
purchased the lot under the assumption they would have reasonable use of the
property per the E-1 zone district, which allows a single-family residence.
f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
Staff found the applicant has proposed the solution with the least impact to the
site by minimizing grading and disturbance of vegetation on a steep slope. Staff
found the applicant’s proposal could not be accommodated through any other
method except a variance.
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 the unique topographical
challenges combined with the narrow width and size of the lot. Staff found these
circumstances are unique to the applicant’s proposal, and are not so general or
recurrent in nature as to make it reasonable for the regulation to be changed to
accommodate similar circumstances.
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 found the variance requests will not result in a reduction in the size of lots
contained in an existing or proposed subdivision.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff found the proposed site design was the least deviation from the regulations
necessary to achieve reasonable use of the property as compared to other
variances and residences throughout the subdivision.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9
July 12, 2016
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 zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Staff found the variances requested will not permit a use prohibited or not
expressly permitted in the E-1 zone district.
7. 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.
Staff has provided recommended conditions of approval for the Board’s
consideration relating to the County Engineering Department comments to be
addressed. The Board is welcome to set forth conditions of approval to address
any concerns that arise during the public hearing.
Staff and Member Discussion
There was brief discussion regarding the Windcliff HOA approval. The approval letter
was shown on the screen.
Public Comment
Celine LeBeau/applicant representative stated the highest retaining wall would be
eight feet high and located at the driveway turnaround.
.
Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated no infrastructure or hard features are
proposed to be placed in the Eiger Trail right-of-way; however, there will be grading in
the right-of-way. Excavators will need to fill from the edge of the existing road to the
driveway in order to lessen the slope from the road to the garage. Mr. Sheldon stated
they could not comply with the literal interpretation of the County’s comment.
Planner McCool stated she understood Mr. Sheldon’s concern regarding the County’s
comments. The Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to waive the
County’s requests.
Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall secure an access permit from the
Larimer County Engineering Access Coordinator. This condition shall replace
Larimer County’s first comment in the email dated June 21, 2016.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall adequately address comments #2
and #3 from the Larimer County Engineering Department email dated June 21,
2016.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10
July 12, 2016
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the three variance
requests with the findings and conditions as amended by staff and the motion
passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy.
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Secretary Thompson stated Member Darling (Chair & County Representative) was
no longer a member of the Board of Adjustment, as he had moved outside the
Estes Valley Development Code area. Therefore, a new chair needed to be elected
for the remainder of 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to elect John Lynch to serve as
Chair of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment through the end of 2016 and
the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy.
6. REPORTS
1. Secretary Thompson reported Randy Hunt has accepted the position as the
Community Development Director. Mr. Hunt will be moving to Estes Park from
Laramie, Wyoming. His first day will be July 19, 2016.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02
a.m.
___________________________________
John Lynch, Chair
__________________________________
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary