Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2015-03-03 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment March 3, 2015 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom, John Lynch, and Don Darling Attending: Chair Smith, Members Moreau, Lynch, Newsom and Darling Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Town Attorney White, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately 30 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 February 2, 2015 meeting It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 4, DIVISION 6, HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS, 1418 Narcissus Drive Chair Smith stated this project was continued from the February meeting. Design changes have been made. The request is for a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 10-foot side setbacks in the E-Estate zone district. The applicant desires to encroach approximately five (5) feet into the side setback to allow construction of a proposed attached garage. Member Moreau recused himself and left the dais. Town Attorney White stated Member Moreau will be speaking on behalf of a colleague on this project. After discussion with staff and Member Moreau, Attorney White approved the process for Member Moreau’s participation at the meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 March 3, 2015 Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the site is located in the High Drive area. The initial application was a request from both the side and front setbacks. Narcissus Road is in the High Drive area, near the burn area from a few years ago. This particular property was not involved in the Woodland Heights fire. There were concerns with the driveway depth, and potential impact on view to the adjoining property to the north. The initial plan called for a two-story structure. The design has been revised to comply with the front yard setback; however, the applicant is still requesting a five foot encroachment into the side setback along the north property line. Another design change is reducing the structure from two stories to one story, which should alleviate any impact on the view from the property to the north. The proposed structure would be only a few feet higher than the existing retaining walls, and under the 30 foot height limit. Planner Shirk stated the revisions in the variance requests were significant, and staff recommended approval, with the findings and conditions listed below. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. The Larimer County Engineering Department expressed concerns about the drainage: the potential impact on stormwater runoff, and potential impact on the travelled way of Narcissus Road. The road is an unmaintained county road, approximately twelve feet wide. There were some safety concerns regarding the depth of the driveway, and whether a vehicle would be able to clear the travelled way when parked in the driveway. One adjacent property owner provided written comment in opposition to the request. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the lot is undersized (.27 acre) for the E–Estate zone district, where the minimum lot size is one-half acre. The existing dwelling was built in 1939, and is located approximately six feet from the north property line. The home was built before the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) was adopted, and also before the County Building Department was established. 2. Practical difficulty: a. Staff found the existing residential use may continue without the addition. b. Whether the variance is substantial: Staff found the variance request would reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet; a 50% reduction. The Board should consider if this request is out of character for the neighborhood. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment: Staff found approval of the variance would result in a side yard setback that is out of character for the neighborhood. The reduction of the building from two- story to one will minimize the overall impact on the neighborhood. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services: Staff found the revised plans will comply with the required front yard setback. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 March 3, 2015 Care should be taken with the construction of the garage to ensure no impact on stormwater drainage. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement: Staff found the owner purchased the property in 2007, with the current setback standards in place. Prior to the EVDC, the setback requirements were 50-feet from all property lines. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some other method: Staff found other options exist. These include (1) building the garage in a different location, which would result in additional site disturbance, and (2) building a narrower garage that would not encroach into the side yard setback. g. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief: Staff found the Board should consider if the garage could be relocated further away from the property line. It may be possible to locate the addition two to three feet further away from the property line. 3. 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: If the Board approves the variance, staff recommends a Surveyor Certificate be required to confirm compliance, and include a detailed grading plan to ensure no impact on drainage. Staff recommends window openings in the north wall to provide visual relief to the long, flat blank wall. This recommendation is based on a development code standard that prohibits more than twenty-two feet of blank garage wall from facing a front property line, and on Community Wide Policy 2.7, which states “façades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to provide visual relief.” Staff and Member Discussion Member Newsom stated the distance from the garage to the edge of the pavement seems short. He was concerned about the amount of space needed to park a vehicle in the driveway. Planner Shirk stated the plans comply with the front yard setback requirements. Public Comment Jeff Moreau/representing the applicant’s agent, Steve Lane, stated the distance from garage to the edge of road is right at 20 feet. Details are still being worked out to resolve the drainage issue. One option is to raise the floor height of the proposed garage and create a swale to the front of the building. The building height will be approximately 17 feet. Member Lynch was concerned about the proposed addition being harmonious with the existing dwellings in the neighborhood, and the close proximity to the adjacent dwelling. He expressed concern about supporting the project. Ruth Routten/County resident lives to the north of the subject property. She was concerned about the amount of space between her home and the proposed structure and how that may come into play during a wildfire. She also had concerns about improper RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 March 3, 2015 drainage eroding her property. She encouraged the Board to vote against the variance request. Staff and Member Discussion Chair Smith stated the proposed 1092 square foot structure was quite large, in proportion to the home, and wondered if the size could be reduced. He was also concerned about drainage. Member Darling was sympathetic to the owner’s desire to add a garage. He stated grading could resolve the drainage issue. He stated there could be other ways to turn the garage so it aligns with the house, and would also create additional parking area. There was discussion between staff and the Board concerning options to reduce the size of the garage. Topography was an issue regarding location. Mr. Moreau returned to the podium, and stated the property owner desired an attached garage, and had several vehicles he wanted to get under cover. He agreed something needed to be done with the long blank wall. The architect was waiting on the decision of the Board before moving forward with additional design work. Planner Shirk stated staff took the approach that the impact on the neighborhood could be mitigated with conditions of approval, if the variance is approved. Mr. Moreau stated the proposed plan was the least intrusive. A driveway further to the south may be too steep. If the property owner is required to build outside of the setbacks, a two-story structure would most likely be constructed. Public comment closed. Conditions of Approval 1. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. 2. A Surveyor Certificate shall be required to verify compliance with the approved site plan. 3. The garage design shall be modified to comply with Community-Wide Policy 2.7 which requires façades to be broken up with windows, doors, or other architectural features. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Newsom) to DISAPPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-1, with Members Lynch, Smith, and Newsom voting in favor, Member Darling voting against. Member Moreau was not at the dais and did not vote. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 March 3, 2015 Member Lynch commented the lot is small, the driveway is short, and the 50% encroachment into the setback is excessive for the neighborhood. To allow the variance would not maintain harmony for the neighborhood. Member Moreau returned to the dais. 4. LOT 1A, DIVISION 8, HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS, 660 Larkspur Road Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The request was for a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet in the E–Estate zone district. The applicant desires a 50-foot lot width to accommodate having the existing single-family dwelling and its water well on the same parcel. Planner Kleisler provided a brief overview of the project thus far. An amended plat for the two subject properties was approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners on February 17, 2015. This involved shifting the internal lot line between Lot 1A and Lot 2A so the existing dwelling and well would be entirely on Lot 2A. As the existing dwelling was built in 1961 on the former interior lot line, and the amended plat remedied that problem. In order to incorporate the well on Lot 2A, the lot width needs to be reduced by 25 feet. The applicant owns both lots involved in the application. Lot 1A is undeveloped, but will have access to public utilities through the dedication of access and utility easements across a neighboring property. Planner Kleisler stated the amended plat also include the vacation of dedicated Larimer County right-of-way for the travelled way on Larkspur along the northwestern property line. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant comments were received by affected agencies. Staff received one letter from a nearby property owner opposed to the variance request. Planner Kleisler stated wildfire mitigation plans do not apply to single-family dwellings constructed prior to the adoption of the EVDC; however, if a structure was proposed for Lot 1A, it most likely would require some fire mitigation prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the existing house was built in 1961, prior to the establishment of building codes or the Larimer County Building Safety Division. The house was constructed on the interior lot line. The location of the existing water well creates a unique circumstance for the owner, who strongly desires to keep the water well on Lot 2A. 2. Practical difficulty: a. Staff found the denial of the variance would not prevent the construction of a home on Lot 1A. b. Staff found the variance is not substantial. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 March 3, 2015 c. Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The proposed lot configuration still allows for a suitable building site, likely a similar location as intended with the creation of the original subdivision (1925). 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 1979. At the time of purchase the lot was zoned E-1–Estate, which required a 180-foot minimum lot width. f. As stated in the applicant’s Statement of Intent, the alternative option to this variance is to record an easement onto this lot. Planner Kleisler stated a condition of approval for the amended plat is if the variance is denied, the applicant could adjust the plat accordingly (interior lot line and vacation of right of way) without returning to the Planning Commission and County Commission for approval. With the amended plat, the existing dwelling now complies with the setback requirements for the zone district. If the variance is denied, the applicant would shift the current lot line to create a 75 lot width on Lot 1A, then create an easement to access the well. Staff does not have a recommendation of approval or denial for this application. Chair Smith summarized the amended plat issue: The front of Lot 1A is now narrower, and the back property line is now wider than what the former lot line allowed. The existing right-of-way was moved to align with the actual road, and the existing right-of-way became part of the lot. Member Lynch commented if the well that provides drinking water for the house on Lot 2A was on Lot 1A, the situation may have a negative impact for potential buyers of Lot 1A. Public Comment Amy Plummer/applicant representative stated the current side setbacks on Lot 1A are ten feet. If a home was built on Lot 1A, it would have to be at least 10 feet the well. If the variance is denied, the applicant would revise the plan to make the west property line at least 75 feet, which puts the well on Lot 1A. Such revision would allow a home to be built less than 10 feet from the well. A home built on Lot 1A could be built further to the west, creating a greater visual impact to the neighbor to the north. Additionally, there is an approximate 40 foot drop between the house to the north and Lot 1A. It was her opinion that a home built on Lot 1A (with variance approval) would not have a visual impact on the neighbor since the best views were more to the southwest and not directly south. She stated the 75 foot lot width is part of the EVDC requirements. Neither staff nor the Planning Commission had the authority to grant a variance for the amount of footage requested. With a 50 foot lot width, there is still enough room for access to Lot 1A. The main intent was for the well to remain on the same lot as the existing dwelling. The applicant desires to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 March 3, 2015 add an addition to the existing dwelling, and have the option to sell Lot 1A. Combining the lots was considered, but the applicant would lose a lot of value if that option was pursued. Planner Shirk stated lot width requirements provide staff with a tool to evaluate setbacks, and ensure property owners can comply with setbacks when a home is built. Steve Wilson/property owner stated he wants to keep both lots separate. There are no intentions to build on it at this time, and he intends to combine the lots for tax purposes. He was unaware of the right-of-way issue prior to beginning the process to add an addition to the home on Lot 2A. Tom Plakke/attorney representing Normie Violleque who owns the property immediately to the north of Lot 1/A. He stated the neighbor notice was mailed to an incorrect address, and Ms. Voilleque just recently became aware of the request. (Note: Adjacent property owner notices are mailed to the address on file with the Larimer County Assessor) Mr. Plakke stated Lot 1A was purchased by the applicant to protect the value of the property. The owners have used both parcels as one for many years, and if Lot 1A is sold and a home built, Ms. Voilleque’s view and property value would be adversely impacted. It was his opinion this potential impact should be taken into consideration by the Board. He stated the applicant is asking the Board to solve a problem that was in existence when they bought the property. Member Newsom stated Lots 1A and 2A are legal lots. Whether or not they have been used as one is immaterial. If Lot 1A is sold, the new owner has the right to build on that lot. Member Lynch added the primary purpose of the variance is to allow a decrease in lot width to incorporate an existing well on Lot 2A. If the well were to remain on Lot 1A, an easement would be required for the well, which could decrease the property value on Lot 1A, and a home could be built very near the well. Normie Voilleque/County resident objected to the variance request. She stated the applicant has not demonstrated special circumstances or conditions to justify the request, and disagreed there were practical difficulties. She stated it was common in the Estes Valley to purchase multiple lots to preserve views, create buffers, etc. She stated there is beneficial use already occurring by the property owners. Changes to the property line would alter the character of the neighborhood and diminish her property value. She stated neither lot meets the minimum lot size for the zone district. An option to the variance would be an easement for the well. She stated wells must be abandoned when lots are connected to public utilities, so the variance would not be justified if the property owners connected to public utilities. Ms. Plummer stated if either Lot 1A or Lot 2A tie into Town water, the existing well must be abandoned or an approved backflow prevention must be installed. The existing lot with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8 March 3, 2015 well is approximately 0.6 acres and, if the variance were approved, would become more compliant with the minimum lot size for the zone district. ‘ Public comment closed. Conditions of Approval None. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Darling) to approve the variance request with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Smith called for a short recess at 10:15 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:23 a.m 5. LOTS 17, 18, 19, BLOCK 5, ESTES PARK; THE BARREL BEER GARDEN, 116 E. Elkhorn Avenue Chair Smith stated the request was for a variance from EVDC Section 4.4.D.1.a, which requires all retail sales, displays and activities and all other uses, storage and activity shall be wholly contained within the interior of a building or permanent structure. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant is The Barrel, LLC, and the owner of the property is Park Theatre Mall, LLC. The section of the code referred to in this request is known as the “containment provision”, and it has been in place since the 1985 zoning code. The purpose of the code is to keep streets uncluttered and ensure pedestrian movements within the downtown area. The variance has been requested to allow a proposed outdoor beer garden at the location of the former Park Theatre Mall. Planner Shirk explained that taverns are an allowed use in the CD-Commercial Downtown zone district, and the variance was to allow that use in an open area, not wholly contained in a building. Planner Shirk stated the variance request is one step in a larger process. The applicant will be going before the Town Board on March 24, 2015 to request a liquor license. If that is approved, they would proceed to the building permit process, including floodplain mitigation. If approved, the beer garden would have access from both the Elkhorn Avenue side and the Big Thompson River side. The proposed bar is a converted shipping container. Restrooms would be on a trailer connected to Town water and Estes Park Sanitation District’s main sewer line. The site would also contain a walk-in cooler and a small building used for the sale of food items. The buildings would be required to comply with the Town building codes, which states they need to be permanently affixed on foundations. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and property owners within 500 feet of the site. Typically, variance requests are subject to adjacent property owner notification a minimum of two properties from the site in all directions (usually about 200 feet); however, in this case, staff chose to notify neighbors RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9 March 3, 2015 500 feet from the site because of anticipated public interest and potential impact. Several written comments were provided to staff, all in support of the request. No comments in opposition were received. Comments from affected agencies included, but were not limited to: (1) it was determined the proposed fencing of beer barrels and wrought iron around the perimeter would not be considered a sign; (2) the Police Department would not impose any special conditions, and let the noise ordinance address any noise issues; (3) the Estes Park Sanitation District took the proposal to the Board of Directors, who had no significant concerns, but would require the facility to connect to the main sewer line. Planner Shirk stated the applicant has subleased the property from EPIC, with approval of the property owners. The goal is to operate the beer garden for the next couple of years, allowing time for the EPIC Board to continue to raise funds for a performing arts center at the site. The proposed hours would be 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. While the beer garden would operate mainly from late spring to early fall, some year round use is anticipated, especially for special events like Catch the Glow parade, Highland Festival, etc. He added there are no downtown residential units that face the proposed site. Planner Shirk stated in reviewing the application, not every criterion is required to have a “yes” answer. The project is reviewed as a whole. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Special circumstances have resulted in practical difficulties in developing the site. The previous building burned to the ground in October, 2009, and the property has remained vacant since. This vacant property in the heart of downtown disrupts the so- called ‘urban fabric’ of downtown and down not contribute to the vibrant downtown area the Comprehensive Plan encourages. The buildings will be permanently attached with foundations that comply with the building code, but will be easily removed. This means the beer garden would put the property to a positive cultural and economic use until a more permanent use is found for the site. If approved, the variance would not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the specific standards, the development code, or the comprehensive plan (for information on specific standards, please refer to the staff report). 2. Practical difficulty: a. In October 2009, the former Park Theater Mall burned to the ground. Since then, a performing arts center has been proposed, but has not been approved for development. No other uses have been proposed, and the parcel has remained vacant, affecting the overall fabric of downtown. Staff finds the proposed use would put the property to a productive use that will enhance the downtown area and will extend the amount of time guests spend downtown. b. The variance is not substantial. This finding is based on: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10 March 3, 2015 i. The buildings will be permanently attached and connected to water and sanitary sewer facilities. ii. Taverns are an allowed use in the CD–Commercial Downtown district. iii. Outdoor seating/eating areas are allowed in the CD–Commercial Downtown district. iv. Other eating/drinking establishments in the downtown area have outdoor seating areas. v. Other eating/drinking establishments in the downtown area have garage doors that open during operating hours. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment. The proposed use would enhance the downtown area by providing a lively entertainment area on a site that is currently blighted. The use would likely result in more guests visiting the downtown area, especially in the evenings, with guests spending more time downtown. The applicant proposes to paint the restrooms “champagne beige”. This, or a complimentary color scheme, should be carried throughout all buildings. Staff has discussed the issue of noise with Commander Eric Rose of the Estes Park Police Department. Commander Rose’s opinion is that no special conditions should be placed on this land use, and that the Town’s Noise Ordinance will allow the Police Department to address any noise issues, should they arise. d. The applicant proposes to connect to the Town water system and the Estes Park Sanitation District sewer system, and would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. e. The applicant is a sub-lessee of the property, and is aware of the EVDC requirement. f. The only alternative the applicant has to a variance for an outdoor ‘beer garden’ in the downtown area is to apply for an amendment to the development code. g. Should the Board approve the variance, staff recommends conditions to mitigate potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses. These conditions summarize issues described above, and area outlined below. Planner Shirk referred to Section 1 of the EVDC, which states “Preserve and protect the architecture, history and small-town character of Estes Park’s historic downtown” and “Strengthen and improve downtown Estes Park as the primary government, cultural, office, financial, tourist, and specialty shopping and pedestrian district of the Estes Valley. He also reviewed the land use policies in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which support and encourage an operation such as this. Planner Shirk stated the Board has the authority to recommend hours of operation or limitations on dates of operation, as they see fit. Staff does not recommend imposing any of these conditions. Staff recommends approval of the variance request, with conditions of approval, listed below. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 11 March 3, 2015 Staff and Board Discussion Member Darling thanked Planner Shirk for a very thorough staff report. Member Moreau inquired about the proposed string lighting complying with the EVDC. Planner Shirk assured the Board all aspects of the project would comply with the EVDC and the local building codes. Public Comment Roger Thorp/applicant representative wanted to clarify that EPIC is continuing to work toward the construction of the performing arts center. They are hoping to begin the development review process in the next few months, but it will take a couple of years to get it off the ground. He stated the current situation at the site does not shed good light on downtown Estes Park. He distributed photos of similar operations so the Board good get a better visual perspective. Mr. Thorp stated once the performing arts center begins construction, the beer garden will be removed. The restroom trailer is made by a company that specializes in providing this type of facility, and includes an ADA accessible stall. The restrooms will be connected to the Estes Park Sanitation District’s sewer line. The restrooms will be locked when the beer garden is closed – they will not be public restrooms. The container bar is a unique idea to repurpose these structures. The doors to the bar will close after hours. A walk-in cooler will be placed behind the container, painted to match, and will have minimal visual impact. Discussion occurred between Mr. Thorp and the Board. Comments included, but were not limited to: (1) signage about not taking alcohol off site; (2) access to water will be in the storage shed; (3) uneven areas of elevation on the slabs have been taken into consideration and will be covered and/or protected; (4) concern about the toilets not being “public;” (5) no fire suppression system is required. Paul Wyhard/local business owner stated the adjacent property owner notices should have been sent to the tenants as well as the property owners. He did not think trailers should be allowed, and suggested building a structure. He stated this project would create an unfair advantage to other similar businesses, just to accommodate a timeline for the performing arts center. He disagreed that the area was blighted, and thought the property owners could improve the fencing on both exposed sides of the property. He was opposed to the variance request, stating the proposed plan was not the only remedy for this site. Trudy Ester/local business owner stated her main concern is alcohol being served in the close proximity to where children and families gather to eat ice cream and candy. She was concerned about the people that smoke, and where they would be allowed to smoke. She did not think the sanitation issue had been addressed to her satisfaction. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 12 March 3, 2015 Ingrid and Lou Bush/applicants stated the buildings would be locked at night, with security cameras and motion-sensor lights. She stated all prepackaged food will be provided by the Park Theater Café, and no grease trap was required. A tavern license does not require food preparation on site. The beer garden will be a no-smoking facility. They will not have happy-hour prices, and will not be encouraging binge drinking. They want to encourage families to visit the facility, but understand public concerns. Everyone wanting to drink will be required to provide proper identification and a stamp will be placed on their hand. During peak times, there will be staff at the entrances to ensure compliance with the state liquor laws. All servers will have stamps, and customers will not have to go to a specific area to obtain a stamp. There will be proper signage for “No Alcohol Beyond This Point”. The state does not require entrances and exits be staffed. During very busy times, they will consider hiring private security, as they do not want to area to be out of control. There will be 60 beers on tap, focusing on Colorado craft beers, with additional craft beers from others part of the US and world. Their initial investment is approximately $300,000. They are excited about the opportunity, and plan on doing everything the right way. Staff and Member Discussion Comments included, but were not limited to: (1) variance requests are all decided upon individually. No precedents are set by the approval or disapproval of a variance. Each application is treated individually; (2) the beer garden will be subject to all the liquor license regulations, just like any other establishment in town; (3) the building and health departments are totally separate from the variance hearing; (4) the Larimer County Health Department had no concerns, but did say it was an unusual set up; (5) Jim Duell with Estes Park Sanitation took the application to the Sanitation Board, who approved the concept; (6) the applicant met with the building department to address all issues concerning building codes. The proposed buildings are considered structures and will be permanently attached; (7) the Fire Marshall had no comments at this stage of the project, but would provide comments during the building permit phase, as needed. Ty Nagl/local business owner disagreed with the structures being considered permanent. He referred to a letter to the editor by Burt Burglund, an EPIC board member. He stated the lower portion of the Wheel Bar (of which he is the owner) has been called the Barrel, and he thought it was interesting the applicant chose that name. He stated the downtown business owners were not aware of the variance request because the notices went to property owners. He recommended continuing the hearing to allow additional public comment. Jenna McGregor/property owner of the proposed site stated she wants to the performing arts center come to fruition. The beer garden will not be a permanent business at that location, but will provide some income to the EPIC group as they continue to work on their project. There will not be a food truck or vending cart. The proposed beer garden would RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 13 March 3, 2015 bring additional revenue to the downtown area. She hopes there would be acoustic entertainment. She was supportive of the project. Elizabeth Fogarty/Director of Visit Estes stated a recent survey of Visit Estes stakeholders indicated an overwhelming need for the downtown area to offer fresh new options for guests and residents. Similar comments were received in a visitor survey. Comments included a lack of food and craft beverage options. There is room for growth in this community. This brings a service and product that we do not currently have downtown. On a different note, she was supportive of food trucks, stating they are an expected amenity in destination communities and they continually get requests for them. Entire community has had to look at the slab for many years and no other entrepreneur has come up with the creative solution like this. Throughout the application process, she has met with Mr. and Mrs. Bush, and stated they have done their due diligence and have always been very professional. Visit Estes is supportive of granting the variance request. Stan Black/Chair, EPIC Board of Trustees stated food trucks are not allowed, and are not a part of this project. The Seeley family (property owners of the site) owns an adjacent licensed restaurant, and requested all food be provided by them. Food will be prepared at the restaurant and delivered to the beer garden. The lease from the property owners to EPIC is for $1 per year. The sublease to The Barrel will earn EPIC over $150,000 over the course of their occupancy. This amount is significant to the EPIC campaign, and he was appreciative of the Seeley family for allowing EPIC to be involved with the project. He stated The Barrel will be paying market rate rent as if there were a building there, and providing $300,000 in leasehold improvements. Mr. Black stated comments claiming unfair competition are unfounded. One of the written comments in the meeting materials is a letter of support from the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce, which represents a large portion of downtown businesses. Making claims that downtown is not represented is not accurate. Member Darling stated his concern about having a bar in close proximity to children. As a member of Sunrise Rotary, they have had a successful annual event (Autumn Gold) in Bond Park for over 20 years where alcohol is served in a family atmosphere, so he knows it can be done. The local Police Department will assist when needed to ensure success. Planner Shirk reiterated the liquor license hearing is scheduled for the March 24th Town Board meeting. Public comment will be accepted at that meeting. Public comment closed. Conditions of Approval RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 14 March 3, 2015 1. All buildings shall be painted to match or compliment the “Champagne Beige” color proposed for the restroom building. Final color scheme shall be subject to review and approval of Community Development staff. 2. Lighting shall comply with Section 7.9 of the EVDC “Exterior Lighting” 3. Compliance with memos from: a. Police Department dated February 26, 2015 b. Code Compliance Officer/Sign Code Technician dated February 19, 2015 c. Town Attorney dated February 9, 2015 d. Town Utilities Department dated February 16, 2015 e. Estes Park Sanitation District dated February 20, 2015 f. Public Works Department dated February 18, 2015 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/ Moreau) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. Member Newsom stated he expected the new business to be an asset to the downtown area. The developers have addressed all the issues to the best of their ability. 6. REPORTS A. Chair Smith reported he will be absent for the April and May meetings. Member Darling will serve as chair in his absence. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:38 a.m. ___________________________________ Pete Smith, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary