Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2011-10-04 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 4, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Bob McCreery, John Lynch, Chuck Levine, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair Newsom, Members McCreery, Smith, Lynch, Levine Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Recording Secretary Thompson, Town Attorney Greg White Absent: None Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT A. Approval of minutes of the September 13, 2011 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 810 RIVERSIDE DRIVE Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a 1.5-foot encroachment into the front setback and 9.9-foot encroachment into the side/rear setback to construct a proposed attached garage and convert the existing garage into living space. The property is located at 810 Riverside Drive, and is zoned E-1–Estate, which requires 25-foot setbacks. The west setback falls within the 10% reduction allowance which could be granted at staff level; however, due to the associated east setback, staff forwarded the west setback as a variance request instead of a minor modification. The site would continue to use the existing driveway located north of the house, which has poor driveway visibility. Because of this, staff wanted to ensure the new addition would not compromise the ability for vehicles to turn around in the driveway to exit onto Riverside Drive facing forward, instead of having to back out. The consulting engineer included a turning radius design that indicates the ability to do so, though larger vehicles would need to conduct a three-point turn. There is a very small encroachment into the front setback, and staff saw no issues with that encroachment. Staff found the request complied with the review criteria set forth in the EVDC Section 3.6.C “Standards for Review”; there may be practical difficulty; the variance was not substantial; and, there were no neighbor concerns voiced for or against the variance request. Staff Discussion Two Board members expressed concern that the area was not staked sufficiently to easily identify the property lines and where the proposed garage would be placed. Member Levine suggested using paint as markers to aid the Board in their site visit. Staff would make note of the request for future variance requests. Public Comment Tom Bergman/Applicant commented on the markers at the site. Conditions 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 4, 2011 variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1810 WINDHAM LANE, Appeal of staff decision and side-yard setback variance request Director Chilcott stated this request was a continuance from the September meeting. The original request was to appeal the staff decision for an accessory structure, and to request a variance from EVDC section 4.3 Table 4-2, requiring 50-foot setback from property lines in the RE–Rural Estate zone district. The applicant desires to construct an accessory structure for additional living space. After last month’s Board of Adjustment meeting, the applicant revised the building plans and removed the kitchenette. The revised plans now comply with the Development Code for accessory structures. Without cooking facilities, the structure would not be considered an accessory dwelling unit. The density in this neighborhood is low, and abuts National Forest land, making neighbor impact minimal. Staff also took into account the conservation easement on the adjacent property near the proposed structure. Staff determined that in this case, the accessory structure would be customary and incidental to the area. Director Chilcott stated the applicant could choose to withdraw the appeal of the staff determination, or they could proceed with the prior decision. Since plans were revised, staff found the structure was not a detached accessory dwelling unit. Harold Haunschild/property owner spoke in favor of withdrawing the appeal. The withdrawal of the appeal was accepted by the Board and staff. Variance request. Director Chilcott stated the applicant requested a variance from the side yard setbacks to construct the accessory structure previously discussed. The lot is zoned RE–Rural Estate, which requires 50-foot setbacks on lots sized 2.5 acres. If approved, the proposed structure would be almost entirely within the 50-foot setback on the southwest portion of the lot. Director Chilcott stated this particular lot is slightly over three acres, but very narrow and rocky. Staff found practical difficulty due to the lot configuration and geologic features. The west property boundary abuts a conservation easement co-owned by the Haunschilds and their neighbor. Staff found the character of the neighborhood would not be altered by this variance request. The location of the proposed structure was placed so there would be minimal, if any, visual impact on the adjacent property owners. No vehicular access to the structure was proposed. Staff received two letters of support from adjacent property owners. Staff recommended approval of the setback variance with conditions. Conditions 1. This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 3. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 4, 2011 It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Levine) to approve the variance request with the finding and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 5. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1731 HIGH DRIVE, Request to alter a nonconforming use Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests to remodel an existing detached garage into additional living quarters. The property is located at 1731 High Drive, near the entrance to the National Park. The lot is zoned E-1 – Estate, where the minimum lot size is one acre. This lot is 0.44 acre, which makes it undersized for the zone district. The applicant has proposed two independent guest sleeping quarters; one being in the lower level of the existing detached garage, replacing current garage space; the other directly above, with separate entrances for each bedroom located on the outside of the structure. Director Chilcott stated the property owner was issued a building permit several years ago to add an upstairs bathroom to the existing garage. According to the county building department, there was not a permit issued to convert additional space above the garage to a bedroom. The site plan shows one two-story main dwelling of less than 1,000 square feet and a detached garage. The property owner was under the assumption the space above the garage had been approved for sleeping quarters. Director Chilcott stated if the applicant desired to continue to use this space as sleeping quarters, he would need to apply and receive a permit to convert the upstairs room to a bedroom. Staff reviewed and found that it was not customary to have, on a lot of less than ½ acre, two independent sleeping and guest quarters. Basically, the proposal is for a guest unit that you may find in the A-1–Accommodations zone district. Also, it is not typical to find guest quarters with separate entrances. Staff found the neighborhood character could be altered. The lot size is small for the zone district and there is the potential for increased density. Staff received one comment from a neighbor concerned about rentals, and two letters of support. Staff recommended denial, stating the owner could add onto the existing dwelling. When questioned about the unpermitted use, Director Chilcott stated the property owner would need to contact a structural engineer to review the site, an electrician and plumber to review the electric and plumbing work, and the sewer and water systems would need to be proven as adequate. During discussion between the Board and staff, Director Chilcott pointed out that staff looked more at the use (two independent sleeping quarters) than the footprint. The Board needed to determine how much detached accessory living space was customary for the zone district. According to the code, Director Chilcott stated the units look like hotel units; completely independent from the main dwelling and accessible from the driveway. The proposal could also present a code compliance concern if the current or future property owner decided to rent the units. Chair Newsom disagreed that this variance would change the character of the neighborhood. Director Chilcott stated if the Board was supportive of the variance, staff would recommend a deed restriction so future property owners would be aware of the regulations not allowing rentals of accessory structures. Public Comment Thomas Beck/Applicant disagreed with the county comments concerning the unpermitted upstairs bedroom. He stated the original garage and upstairs bedroom were permitted in the late 1980s, with the permit for the upstairs bathroom issued in 2003, after the Franklin’s purchased the property. There was a debate between Mr. Beck and the County Building Department as to whether or not the bedroom was permitted. Town Attorney White was questioned about grandfathering, and stated that grandfathering does not apply if the use was never legally permitted. He was commenting only on the grandfathering regulations, not specifically to this application. Darrell Franklin/property owner stated the main dwelling was very small, and he desired to add additional space for personal guests. He had no intention of renting the rooms, but would agree to a deed restriction. He anticipated using the additional bedrooms about 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 October 4, 2011 times per year, and thought this addition would be the most practical and economical way to expand their living space. Member McCreery expressed concern about the deed restriction not allowing rental of any part of the property, not just the additional bedrooms, and cautioned the applicant to review the wording of a deed restriction. Director Chilcott stated this was a difficult application to review and also a difficult decision to recommend denial. Whatever decision the Board makes, she hoped it would bring awareness to the elected officials as to the dilemma associated with accessory structures and dwelling units. Member McCreery would be supportive of the request if the necessary permits and/or corrections were granted. Mr. Beck stated he reviewed a possible addition to the existing dwelling, which would be difficult. A second story would not be practical due to the strength of the foundation. If necessary, he could redesign the proposed project to make one entrance to the structure. Member Levine stated he did not think Mr. Franklin did anything nefarious, and the proposal was given with the best possible results in mind. Member Levine supported staff, and agreed this issue identified how difficult the decisions can be. He suggested receiving better direction on how these types of applications are handled. He commended staff for doing everything they were supposed to do. The Board suggested the applicant create a deed restriction that was specific to not being able to rent out the detached bedrooms separately from the main dwelling, while still allowing the property owner the ability to rent the entire property on a long-term basis. Town Attorney White stated the deed restriction could be crafted to address the issue of possible future zoning regulation changes allowing rentals of detached units. Town Attorney White stated the applicant would need to resolve the existing building permit issues with Larimer County. Conditions 1. Compliance with the building design as approved by the Board of Adjustment 2. Compliance with the comments from the Larimer County Code Compliance Section dated August 31, 2011, which includes, but is not limited to, obtaining a change of use permit. 3. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall submit letters to Community Development from the Water Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District verifying that all fees have been paid. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, including a deed restriction submitted by the applicant and subject to approval by the Town attorney prior to the final inspection and the motion passed unanimously. 6. REPORTS Director Chilcott reported the terms of Chair Newsom and Member Levine expire on February 28, 2012. The vacancies will be opened to the public and will be advertised in the local newspaper in the near future. Chair Newsom expressed his willingness to remain on the Board for another term. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. ___________________________________ Wayne Newsom, Chair ___________________________________ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 October 4, 2011 Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary