Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2014-05-06 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 6, 2014 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending: Vice-Chair Moreau, Members McCreery, Smith and Newsom Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Chair Lynch Vice-Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were three people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the April 1, 2014 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0, with one absent. 3. LOT 1, VISITOR CENTER SUBDIVISION, 500 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park Transit Facility & Parking Structure Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant, Walker Parking Consultants, had requested three variances from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires a maximum setback of 16 feet and a maximum height of 30 feet in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district. The applicant requested the following to align with construction plans for a proposed three-level parking structure: 1) A maximum front setback of approximately 82 feet; 2) A 500 square foot stair tower roof to be approximately 32 feet above grade; and 3) The proposed light fixtures to extend approximately 47 feet 6 inches above grade. Planner Shirk stated the proposed project is located at 500 Big Thompson Avenue, at the Estes Park Visitor Center. The existing parking lot contains 134 parking spaces at ground level. A parking structure containing 217 spaces is proposed. The site would be accessed from Big Thompson Avenue, and have shared access with the Estes Park Sanitation District and the Town Park Shops. Planner Shirk stated the maximum setback was established to preserve the street wall in the downtown area. In this case, the shape of the lot creates a hardship, and the structure would be very inefficient if the 16-foot setback was required. Additionally, access would be difficult with a 16-foot setback. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the Development Plan on May 2, 2014 with several conditions, including approval of the requested variances. He stated the primary concerns from neighbors are related to the lighting. No concerns were expressed regarding the setback or stairway height. Planner Shirk introduced Don Monahan, the lighting expert for Walker Parking Consultants. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 6, 2014 Mr. Monahan showed a very informative PowerPoint presentation, which was posted to the Town website at www.estes.org/currentapplications. His goal was to balance safety and security through lighting. The parameters for this parking structure were based on horizontal luminance. There would be enhanced lighting at the entrance to the facility. Security lighting has been designed to 6.2 candles, where six is the average. He explained the difference in wattage and the types of fixtures planned for the structure, and suggested considering the use of lighting controls for high summer use and low winter use. Mr. Monahan stated the roof lighting is less than the lowest standard required. He explained the standards for different types of lighting zones (LZ). In his research, he determined this proposed parking structure would be considered an LZ3, due to traffic counts, number of busses, and the two highways both coming in to town near the proposed location. LZ3 is typical for areas of medium population density or areas intended for public and light commercial activities. This zone has a lumen standard of 5.0 lumen per square foot. The proposed light fixtures illuminate at an amount less than the maximum allowed. He stated backlight, uplight, and glare illumination all comply with the EVDC, with the exception of one small area on the south side of the proposed structure adjacent to the Big Thompson River. This area is lower in elevation, and exceeds the standard by one foot candle. Mr. Monahan went into further detail about the lighting controls, stating police departments typically do not like to turn lights all the way off, but it would be possible to put them on a timer or motion sensor to dim when not in use. Sensors could be installed on individual lights. He explained the height of the pole is also needed so light will infiltrate between vehicles. Eight light poles/fixtures are proposed for the top level. The large panels around the perimeter would block light spillover immediately around the structure. Discussion occurred between the Board and Planner Shirk concerning the improvements in types of outdoor lighting, whether or not the EVDC should be amended to increase the height limit, the desire to require motion sensors, dimmable fixtures, and hours of operation to lessen the impact on adjacent property owners. Mr. Monahan added motion sensors would be hard-wired in at the time of construction. Planner Shirk expressed concern about limiting the hours of operation, stating general parameters may be better than specific times. He mentioned the option adding an additional condition of approval to monitor the hours of operation during the first year of operation and adjust as necessary. Public Comment None. Findings 1. The requests comply with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. The development proposal is consistent with transportation goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 4. The variances are not substantial. 5. Nearby property owners have expressed concern about lighting, and requested the lighting be minimized. 6. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. This finding includes consideration of the proposed impact of lighting. 7. Community-wide policies in the Comprehensive Plan include “the natural colors of wood and stone are most desirable tor building exteriors.” The proposed structure would have a stone veneer for the lower level, and concrete for the upper levels. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 May 6, 2014 9. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. The parking structure would help alleviate downtown traffic congestion. 10. The variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 11. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 12. Failure to apply for a building permit and comment construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the variance requests, with the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Surveyor shall verify building location and height. 2. Motion sensors and dimmers shall be installed with initial construction. 3. Hours of operation shall be monitored during the first year of operation and adjusted as necessary. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance requests for the Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-1, with one absent and Member McCreery voting against the motion. 4. LOT 1, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, 333 E. Wonderview Ave, Stanley Hotel Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. This request was for a variance from EVDC section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires a maximum height limit of thirty (30) feet in all zone districts. The applicant is The Stanley Hotel, which desires to erect a 50-foot tall Ferris wheel for three days during their carnival over the July 4th holiday weekend. He stated the carnival is an allowed accessory use for this property, and classified as “private recreational facilities for use by residents, employees, or guests.” Planner Kleisler stated the Stanley Hotel submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit for a Ferris wheel in 2013. At that time, it was determined the temporary use approval would also require approval of a height variance in order to notify adjacent property owners of the proposed plan. In 2013, the timeline for variances did not allow the Stanley Hotel to pursue the height variance. This year, they submitted their application early enough to allow the Board of Adjustment to hear their request. In reviewing a temporary use permit, staff “may impose conditions, including but not limited to control of nuisance factors (e.g. glare, noise, smoke, and dust), provisions of security and safety measures, and limitations on hours of operation, storage and parking.” Planner Kleisler stated the proposed site would be located directly in front of the hotel on the large patio area. Other carnival activities would surround the Ferris wheel. He provided some view corridor photo simulations, stating there would be minimal view impacts from view corridors. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Fire Marshall Marc Robinson provided comments concerning the requirement of an operational permit. Planner Kleisler stated the variance is the only method to allow the Ferris wheel. Additionally, should the board approve this variance, staff recommends the Board consider placing a time of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with the days of operation set for July 3, 4, and 5, 2014. Findings 1. No special circumstances or exceptional topographic conditions exist. Strict compliance with the Code’s standards would prohibit the use of the Ferris wheel. 2. The carnival event was held in 2013 without a Ferris wheel. Hotel and temporary carnival use may continue absent of this request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 May 6, 2014 3. The variance is temporary and not substantial. 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The view corridors established in the Stanley Historic District Master Plan will be obstructed for the period of the temporary carnival. 5. Reviewing agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. The Estes Valley Fire Marshall recommends approval conditional to State permitting compliance. 6. The Stanley Hotel was established well before the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. 7. A variance is the only method to mitigate the applicant’s predicament for the desired Ferris wheel. 8. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 9. The Board of Adjustment may impose restrictions such as time of operation. Public Comment Allen Aspinall/applicant representative stated no music would be associated with Ferris wheel; however, there would be a band providing music. He is working on finalizing the temporary use permit for the music. The carnival would be family oriented with bounce houses and simple carnival games. He stated an on-going approval of the Ferris wheel would be appreciated to avoid going through the variance process every year. Although the carnival is not profitable, it does bring people to the hotel. He explained the roof line of the hotel is slightly over fifty feet, so for most views, the Ferris wheel will not project higher than the hotel. There are lights on the wheel, which will be on. He stated the start time will probably be around noon, and go no later than 10:00 p.m. Mr. Aspinall stated the event last year was organized at the last minute, and more thought has been put into this year’s carnival. As for the temporary height variance, he stated that was currently a crane in the neighbor assisting with construction of a new home which was clearly over thirty feet tall. That construction project did not need a variance to operate, and he saw the Ferris wheel as a similar situation. It will take less than one day to set up and tear down, and will be located on a stable concrete pad. Electricity to the site will come from the nearby pool house. He stated the carnival is open to the public, and tickets will be sold for food, drink, and activities. The Ferris wheel operators will pull their own state permit, and the Stanley Hotel will have insurance. Staff and Board Discussion Member Newsom was concerned if music from the Ferris wheel would have a negative impact on adjacent property owners. Planner Kleisler stated two neighbors provided comments on the application, and neither were opposed. He explained the set-up and tear-down would most likely occur one day on either side of the days of operation. He stated approved variances are good for one year from the date of approval. The Board could approve the temporary use for multiple years. Member Newsom suggested allowing the use for only one year and re-evaluating afterwards for future approvals. Member Smith agreed with Member Newsom. Member McCreery was in favor of allowing the use for more than one year. Planner Kleisler stated the Ferris wheel temporary use would be monitored closely this year. Depending on the outcome, staff would consult Town Attorney White for a recommendation for future years. Mr. Aspinall stated he would prefer to not have to pay the $500 variance application fee every year. Public Comment was closed. Conditions of Approval 1. Time of operation of the Ferris wheel shall be 10:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. 2. The days of operation shall be July 3, 2014 through July 5, 2014. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the height variance for the temporary use of a Ferris wheel at the Stanley Hotel with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 May 6, 2014 5. LOT 1, DeVILLE SUBDIVISION, 540 s. St. Vrain Ave, O’Reilly Auto Parts Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requested variances from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, Section 4.4.D.2.a, and Section 4.4, Table 4-7 to construct a new commercial building. Planner Shirk stated the applicant received a variance for this site plan over a year ago. Construction was delayed and the variance approval expired. A few minor revisions have been made since then. The applicant, O’Reilly Auto Parts, plans to redevelop 540 S. St Vrain, the site of the former Mountaineer Restaurant, located at the corner of Graves Avenue and S. St. Vrain. Planner Shirk stated the shape and size of the lot is driving the variance requests. The site is better suited to have front access on Graves instead of S. St. Vrain, due to the narrowness of the lot. Additionally, there is not enough land area to comply with the requirement to have the driveway set back 250-feet from the highway. Typically, a development this size would be a staff-level approval; however, the number of proposed parking spaces triggered the need for a variance. Senior Planner Shirk stated one property owner was concerned about drainage from the proposed development. He stated the existing drainage swale has not been maintained for several years. There are currently no easements or stormwater management plans in place, and the Public Works department was unaware of the responsibility to maintain the swale. As a remedy to this situation, the proposed plan includes a drainage easement, and the Town will begin to provide maintenance of the swale. The new construction would include a retention pond for sheet flow from the parking lot. Additionally, the applicant would be relocating the trash pad to the east side. This minor revision would not interfere with delivery and fire truck turning templates. Findings 1. The requests comply with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code 2. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3. The variances are not substantial. 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 6. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. Redevelopment of the site will help alleviate neighborhood stormwater management problems. 7. The variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 8. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 9. Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Board and Staff Discussion There was a brief discussion concerning the drainage swale and the revisions from the original site plan. Public Comment Tim Uhrik/applicant representative stated all the drainage on the east side would be captured and routed to the retention pond prior to release through the swale. Stormwater from the roof would be piped through the building and released in the retention pond, instead of being allowed to drain off the back of the building. All impervious areas would drain into the easement. The drainage of the site will be drastically improved from the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 May 6, 2014 current conditions. He stated the trash pad would be relocated, and the retaining wall location adjusted to allow for additional easement. Additional landscaping will be installed to screen the trash pad. Rachelle Repine/Town resident stated stormwater currently drains onto her property. She would like to have the drainage ditch either maintained or altered to contain a greater amount of water, as the swale has not been maintained and is full of sediment. Planner Shirk stated his appreciation of Ms. Repine for bringing the issue to staff’s attention. The proposed improvements to the swale and the proposed setback will make the swale between 15 and 18 feet wide. The Town will maintain it, keeping sediment removed. This should resolve issues that have been ongoing since the 1980s. Tim Bath/adjacent business owner stated the drainage area between the two buildings needs repair, and explained a wheelbarrow and shovel would be the best method for maintenance. Public comment closed. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design. 2. Setback Certificate. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a surveyor certificate verifying compliance with approved setback variance. It was moved and seconded (Smith/McCreery) to approve the requested variances for O’Reilly Auto Parts with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 6. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1337 CLARA DRIVE Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The applicant has requested a variance from EVDC Section 6.3.C.2 Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited. The applicant, Jim Temple, wishes to construct an addition and new deck to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The subject property includes a single-family residence built in 1897, an ADU built in 1924, and a small shed built in 1929. The home and ADU were both remodeled in 1973. The ADU is considered legally nonconforming because it was built prior to the adoption of the EVDC. Planner Kleisler stated nonconforming structures may continue to be used, with repair and maintenance permitted to ensure safety. Planner Kleisler stated the current property, located in unincorporated Larimer County, was purchased by Mr. Temple in 2012. The dwelling in question has a staircase entry with questionable safety. The applicant is proposing a deck and new entry addition, and a new bathroom. The area for the proposed bathroom is directly above bedrock, and blasting is not an option. The applicant is proposing plumbing be brought to the addition via drilling through the bedrock. The water department supports the plan. Findings 1. Exceptional topographic conditions do exist. The ADU is located atop a rock foundation and exposed boulders. The applicant has sought the opinion of excavation experts and determined that connecting the ADU to water service through the existing crawl space would likely destroy the building. 2. Single-family use may continue. Use of the second residence may not continue. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The closest neighbors are approximately 200 feet to the east and west. 5. Reviewing agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. The Water Department has met with the Applicant and is supportive of this request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 May 6, 2014 6. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the property in 2012 after the adoption of the EVDC. 7. A variance appears to be the only practical method to connect the ADU to water service and establish safe entry that meets current building code. 8. The bathroom addition and new entry/deck appear to be reasonable extensions to allow for adequate use of the structure. 9. If approved, the variance will be confirmed with building permit submittal and final inspection. Board and Staff Discussion Planner Kleisler stated the applicant was unable to attend the meeting. He stated one neighbor comment was received, and was supportive of the variance request. Public Comment None. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 7. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler reported the Town Board approved an amendment to the EVDC concerning time lapse of approvals. The previous regulation stated the applicant must apply for and obtain a building permit within one year of approval, or the approval would be null and void. The approved amendment allows for greater flexibility with some projects, such as those connected to a Development Plan or Special Review where the complexity of the project may delay building permit issuance by more than one year. Approvals of smaller projects (residential setbacks, signs, etc) would still be valid for one year. Planner Kleisler clarified the three-year approval would apply only in cases where the variance was directly tied to another application. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:23 a.m. ___________________________________ Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary