Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2015-07-28 - Special MeetingRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015, 2015 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Don Darling, Members Wayne Newsom, John Lynch, and Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair Smith, Members Darling, Lynch, Newsom and Moreau Also Attending: Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Smith called the special meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. There were two 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 June 2, 2015 meeting It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1740 HUMMINGBIRD LANE Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2 to allow encroachment 21 feet into the side setback to allow an existing cabin footprint and foundation to remain after unpermitted removal of the existing dwelling during construction of a permitted addition. Due to the size of the lot and the zone district, the entire lot is considered in the setback. In November, 2014, the property owner received a variance for a 580 square foot addition. During construction of the addition, the contractor began demolishing the principal structure. Because this was unpermitted work, the Larimer County Building Department issued a Stop Work Order, and the applicant was required to pull a Demo Permit. Given the extent of the demolition, Town staff determined that an additional variance was needed to reconstruct the principal house in the same location. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 2 July 28, 2015 The home was originally constructed in 1935, and was considered legally nonconforming. The size of the lot is significantly sub-sized for the zone district, and the setbacks actually overlap, making the entire lot in the setback. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Additionally, a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. One public comment was received from the adjacent property owner to the west, who was concerned about the existing septic system and the possibility of a sewer easement across his property should the septic fail and the property owner at the subject address be required to hook up to the sewer system. Several Board members commented that would be an issue for the Larimer County Health Department, and was not in the purview of the Board of Adjustment. Planner Kleisler explained a condition of approval limiting the re-built structure to one story. He stated when a structure is destroyed (by ways other than demolition), the property owner has one year to rebuild in the same footprint with the same character. Staff is treating this rebuild the same; therefore, staff is recommending the dwelling be limited to one story. Staff Findings 1. The lot is significantly sub-sized for the E-1–Estate zone district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. This parcel is 0.26 acres, comparable to lots in the R-Residential zone district. Lots in the R–Residential zone district have ten foot setbacks. If zoned appropriately, the project would comply with ten foot setbacks, and not require a variance. The house was located legally at the time it was built. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”, staff found: a. The applicant must receive a variance to re-establish a residential use of the property. b. The variance is not substantial. The footprint of the original house is not expanding. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The proposed addition is generally consistent with the size and character of surrounding homes. d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the home in 2005, after the adoption of the current setback standards. f. When asked by staff, the applicant’s Architect expressed practical concerns with moving the footprint of the former principal structure towards the center of the lot. The main concern expressed during that time centered on the functionality of the floor plan layout. Regardless of location any structure will be entirely nonconforming to setback standards; therefore, it is impossible to build RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 3 July 28, 2015 or expand a structure without a variance. The only other options for the Applicant are to (1) purchase an adjacent property, combine both lots and rebuild to meet setbacks; or (2) rezone the property to a district with less restrictive setback standards. 3. The conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general or recurrent in nature. 4. The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. 5. Staff finds the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. Residential uses are permitted in the E-1–Estate zone district. 7. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor verify building placement. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the variance request, with the following conditions listed below. Public Comment Paul McKinley/applicant stated the existing deck and outbuilding were removed for the new addition. Things got carried away, and the home was demolished. Member Moreau questioned the possibility of moving the foundation to come more into compliance with the zone district. Mr. McKinley stated they were planning to use the existing foundation for the rebuild. Member Moreau inquired about whether or not the applicant received the appropriate permits from Larimer County to demo the building, including but not limited to permits required by the state (asbestos). He explained the demolition permit process, which is quite lengthy and expensive if asbestos is present. The applicant stated he was not aware of receiving those permits. Mr. McKinley stated the permit for the addition included replacing the roof. Member Darling inquired as to whether or not the permit pack for the addition was on site when the walls were removed. The applicant stated the permit pack was on site, and once the walls came down, he thought it may help his case to leave the one remaining wall. He stated the architectural plans will remain the same as the dwelling that was destroyed, with the walls shown as new. The one remaining wall will be removed. The applicant stated he has a valid business license in Larimer County. Conditions of Approval 1. Full compliance with applicable building code, approved site plan, and building plans. 2. The proposed structure shall not extend beyond the original footprint and shall remain a single story. 3. Prior to pouring foundation, the applicant shall submit a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 4 July 28, 2015 It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Darling) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS Planner Kleisler stated there will be no August meeting. Planner Kleisler stated the Estes Park Transit Facility & Parking Structure is schedule to be heard by the Planning Commission in August. If approved at that meeting, it would come to the Board of Adjustment in September. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. ___________________________________ Pete Smith, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary