Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-05-01RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer None Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the April 3, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., 2025 MORAINE AVENUE, Applicant: Steve Eck — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to reduce the required setback from an arterial road from 25 feet to 8 feet, variance from Section 7.5.F.2.b(6) to allow development within five feet of the property line and within the required arterial-street-frontage-buffer landscape area, and variance from Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(a) to reduce the required river setback from 50 feet to 45 feet. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) standards to allow a front-yard setback of eight feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required, to allow a driveway and portion of a detached residential/accommodations unit to be constructed within the arterial front-yard setback, and to allow decks and a retaining wall to be constructed within the river setback. The parcel is zoned A-Accommodations and the applicant has submitted a development plan application for nine residential/accommodations units. A significant portion of the property lies within the floodplain, and the applicant proposes to raise a portion of the site with three feet of fill material to be supported by a retaining wall. Revision of the floodplain requires approval of FEMA and issuance of a permit from the Larimer County Engineering department, and would allow construction of one additional unit. It is the opinion of planning staff that the applicant’s justifications for the requested variances are based on the unit type and total number of units the applicant desires to build, rather than on the site itself. The property is owned by Anne Toft and is currently addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue; the designation of this road was recently changed from state highway to county road. Larimer County requires dedication of an additional ten feet of road right-of-way. In considering whether special circumstances exist, dedication of county road right-of-way does not constitute a special circumstance because it is a requirement throughout Larimer County. The floodplain does create a special circumstance, and staff would support a request to raise the floodplain in order to eliminate or reduce the need for setback variances and provide reasonably functional building sites. However, the applicant’s proposal increases the allowable density on the property, which staff cannot support. Furthermore, the increased density results in Unit 1 being located within the setback—a self-imposed hardship. Staff does not support the request for a setback encroachment for Unit 1. Staff disagrees with three “special circumstances” listed on the applicant’s statement of intent. Eliminating the proposed two-car garages from the units would alleviate the narrow RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 1,2007 lot “special circumstance.” The property is zoned for accommodations use; two-car garages are not necessary or even typical for high-intensity commercial accommodations use and the site is too narrow for this type of design. Secondly, the applicant’s statement of intent states the property to the north was developed with a zero lot line, which is misleading. That property was granted a variance to allow a portion of the driveway to be located within the landscaping setback. No structures were located within the setback, nor were there any requested variances to the river setback. The required river setback on the adjoining property was thirty feet rather than fifty feet because there was prior development on the property. Variances such as that granted for the adjoining property do not establish a precedent, but they do influence neighborhood character. Finally, the statement of intent contends “the proposal is to develop the land in accordance with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan.” Planner Shirk stated this is not correct, as evidenced by the applicant’s multiple requests to vary from the code requirements. The property is currently undeveloped, and the proposed development could be designed to meet all setbacks. The floodplain nets out significant density potential; there could be only six to ten units developed on the property regardless of whether the requested variances are approved. EVDC Section 1.9 states “the number of dwelling or accommodations units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density established for a zoning district is not a guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development standards.” It is the opinion of planning staff that the requested variances are substantial because three variances are requested for an undeveloped parcel, the entire length of the driveway will be located within the required landscaping setback area, and raising the floodplain results in an increase in allowable density. Also, staff suggests that the size of the proposed units (approximately 3,000 square feet, including garage space) is the primary reason for the variance requests. In considering whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining property owners would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, staff believes fill in the floodplain could have a negative flood storage impact on the neighborhood. The applicant does not own the property and is purchasing it with the intent to develop. Staff expressed concerns about proposed variances and referenced limits of disturbance standards in a pre-application meeting in October 2006 and in a follow-up meeting in November 2006. An application submittal made in November 2006 was not accepted because it did not meet code requirements. In considering whether the requested variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief, staff suggests the proposed retaining wall could be located outside the required fifty-foot river setback and the units could be made smaller, thus minimizing the variance requests. Specifically, EVDC Section 3.6.C.4 states “no variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations.” It is staff’s strong opinion that placement of the retaining wall within the fifty-foot river setback will allow an additional unit to be built in this condominium project (reviewed as a subdivision under the EVDC) and the variance should not be granted. EVDC Section 7.2.D also sets forth limits of site disturbance, including riparian habitat, stream corridors and wetland protection and buffering, and floodplains, floodways, flood fringes, and flood hazards. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering Department. Written comments, office visits, and phone calls expressing concern about the floodplain and requested road setback variance were received from neighboring property owners David Ranglos, Jay Lykins and Cheryl Wagner, Ben McTavish, John Menardi, and Richard Minker. Ranglos and Menardi both stated it is common for this property to flood for approximately one month each spring. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 May 1,2007 Planning staff recommends disapproval of the requested variances for seven reasons (see Motion). Discussion followed between the Board members and planning staff. Planner Shirk stated the applicant proposes the maximum density of development that would be allowed with the increased land area provided by raising the floodplain and placing the retaining wall within the river setback. If the applicant proposed one less unit or combined the units (rather than the mix of attached and detached units proposed), the development could occur without the requested variances. It is the site design that is driving the variance requests. Public Comment: Zach Hanson, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. The applicant began designing plans for the property prior to the time FEMA adopted changes to the floodplain. Mr. Hanson showed drawings of the site’s former, current, and proposed floodplain. The applicant has worked with FEMA and is proposing less fill on the site than is allowed by FEMA; the applicant is following FEMA regulations and believes neighboring properties will not be affected. The additional road right-of-way dedication required by Larimer County also impacts the development potential of the site. The proposed development is clustered at the east end of the property and allows for future widening of the county road, if it occurs. He quoted from comments received from the Larimer County Engineering department, which state there should not be any hindrances to future road improvements and the department has no major concerns with the variance requests. The proposed unit sizes are 2,100 to 2,200 square feet, a common size for accommodations units in the area; living space is proposed above the garages so removing the garages will not change the building footprint. The site disturbance proposed by the applicant is much less than that allowed on the adjacent Rambling River Condominiums development. Building clustering minimizes disturbance to the remainder of the site; approval of the requested variances would provide a trade-off for leaving the land open for wildlife access and less site disturbance. Discussion followed between the Board members and planning staff. Planner Shirk noted that Estes Valley Development Code standards are more restrictive than FEMA’s. The EVDC and Comprehensive Plan discourage development in the floodplain. The volume of traffic on Moraine Avenue was discussed. Although the town and county are currently holding discussions about the right-of-way requirements for county roads within the Estes Valley planning area, the Board must base their decision on the standards that are currently in effect. Member Sager expressed his concern that the applicant’s plans state the property line follows the centerline of the river but show a property line that does not. Director Joseph stated the property line was shown as prepared by a professional, licensed surveyor; the apparent discrepancy is the result of the way the deed has been prepared over the years. Steve Eck, applicant, stated he originally planned to develop ten 2,000-square-foot units on the property. He thought a thirty-foot river setback applied to the property but because there is no prior development on the land, the setback is fifty feet. He has reduced the proposal to nine units and will lose profitability on the development if one of the single­ family units must be removed or joined to another unit. He is trying to save two trees, which must be removed if the units are condensed. The proposed units are similar in size to others in the neighborhood and were designed to fit the land. The additional road right- of-way required by the county has caused the site design to be out of compliance. The purpose of the retaining wall is to keep dirt from sloughing off onto vegetation and limit disturbance to natural areas; the highest point of the wall will be approximately four feet; the wall will be engineered. Planner Shirk stated the required setback from the river has been fifty feet from the annual high-water mark of the river since the year 2000; prior to that it was 100 feet from the center of the river. Anne Toft, owner of the property, stated the parcel does not flood and hasn’t in 100 years. Nearby properties have development closer to the river and closer to the road. The JLJL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 May 1,2007 property has been zoned and taxed as an accommodations property for years. The access easement for the property to the south is unlikely to ever be used. Adjacent property owners Tim Finnigan, Cheryl Wagner, Dave Ranglos, and Jane Miller expressed opposition to raising the floodplain due to possible impacts of altered river flows to their properties. They also expressed concern about development close to the road, safety of vehicles and pedestrians, traffic volume, and availability of parking on the site. Mr. Ranglos stated his primary concern is the easement that provides access to his property; ingress/egress will be very important if he ever chooses to sell one of his parcels separately. Discussion followed between Board members and planning staff. Member Sager stated the development could be designed to meet the river setback, he is not supportive of the encroachment of proposed Unit 1 into the front-yard setback, and suggested the request be tabled pending further information from FEMA. Chair Newsom quoted from the Board of Adjustment Powers and Duties, noting that financial gain is not sufficient reason to sustain a variance. The property can still be developed, and the development could be designed to fit the property without variances. Member Levine stated he is sympathetic that some setback standards have changed since the applicant began considering development of the property but the Board must consider existing standards. Member Lynch encouraged the applicant to persevere and design the development to fit within the setbacks. Director Joseph noted lack of final information from FEMA would have to be central to the application to justify tabling it; he encouraged the Board to render a decision based on current evidence as presented. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to disapprove the variance requests for the Metes and Bounds property located in the SE 1^ of S35-T5N-R73W, addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue, for the foilowing reasons: 1. The site could be designed to meet or minimize setback reduction requests. 2. The floodpiain fill within the river setback wouid resuit in an additional unit. 3. The impact of the proposed development outweighs any special circumstances. 4. The variances are substantial. 5. The applicant is aware of the code requirements prior to purchase of the property, thus any hardships wouid be self-imposed. 6. The variances couid be mitigated by methods other than a variance. 7. The variances do not represent the least deviation that wouid afford relief. The motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 10:36 a.m. JulieTioederen/Recording Secretary