Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2008-02-05RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 5, 2008, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair John Lynch, Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Chair Lynch; Members Dill and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer Members Levine and Newsom, Alternate Member Grant Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the January 8, 2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dill) to approve the minutes. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF 1895 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, Owner/Applicant: Yakutat Land Corporation — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow an existing fenced-in structure for hay storage to remain located 30.7 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 50-foot front-yard setback in the RE-1 - Rural Estate zoning district, and variance from Section 7.6.E.1.a.2.b to allow the structure to remain 16.7 feet from the annual high-water mark of the stream corridor in lieu of the required 30-foot setback Director Joseph summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance from the setback required for the front property line and from the required stream setback to allow completion of the construction of a hay shed in the historic location used for hay storage for the commercial horse stables. Sombrero Ranches. The hay storage shed is located on an undeveloped parcel in unincorporated Larimer County, immediately north of the stables, and encroaches into the front-yard setback and stream setback. Construction of a metal framework to provide a roof over the hay was started without a building permit but halted pending resolution of this variance request. The applicant was required to request a waiver from the Larimer County Flood Plain Review Board prior to appearing before the Board of Adjustment due to the hay shed’s location within the floodplain and floodway; this wavier was granted. The primary focus of this variance request is the stream setback. A prominent reason for the required setback from streams (aside from the potential impact to the floodplain and/or floodway) is to protect the natural vegetation found along streams, which has value as wildlife habitat in addition to its scenic and aesthetic value. In planning staff’s opinion, the requested variance to the stream setback, which reduces the setback from 30 feet to 16.7 feet, is substantial. Staff has determined that there can be beneficial use of the property without the requested variances, that approval of the variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services, and that the applicant purchased the property before the adoption of the current setback standards. The key question is whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through another method. Staff’s opinion is that a conforming location for the hay shed could be found elsewhere on the property; however, the applicant should have the opportunity to present a persuasive argument as to the value of the proximity of the hay shed to the stables. The Board members should use their best judgment in determining whether the applicant’s request represents the least deviation to afford relief and may choose to consider the historic pattern of use of the hay storage location and its proximity to the stables. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS II Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 5, 2008 If the Board chooses to approve the requested variances, it may require conditions that secure the objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code, and staff recommends the aoplicant be required to restore a similar-sized area of habitat (approximately 3,000 square feet) along the stream bank to offset the loss of habitat in the hay shed location. Although use of that particular location for hay storage began years ago, stacking hay did not create a permanent footprint on the land, while construction of the hay storage shed does. If the applicant had not begun construction of the shed without a building perrriit, the hay storage location could easily have been moved to a conforming location, and this area could have been restored to its natural condition. Although the stream is intermittent in some locations, it is perennial in others, and it is a mapped drainage shown in the Estes Valley Development Code. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No comments were received. Public Comment: Lonnie SheldonA/an Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He confirmed th^the stream is a ■igood-sized creek” when it flows. He provided information isiSliiliiiiSTainhmS^ propel* rhaendnr J»'sy - ^canb Mj-e- Stated the applicant is willing t° c°^p ^ , between the requested variances and the however, Mr. Sheldon questioned t re ested variances are not L?;rd!^appS stack ino approvai is required for the hay flion©!Discussion continued between the Board members, planning staff, and Mr. Sheldon and is rnTua~rnS; Chair ^V-h-KrdJoi&" appearance of the hay storage f r®a' °'r®°'°re,backP^^^ protect native vegetation) and the between the purpose of the re<'|ul,red ai*r®ap ® *, an equivaient area of habitat along the proposed condition of approval (r®''.®9®*a*l° mitiaate toe adverse impacts of creating a Learn). The purpose of the fn ° locatiL. In staff^ opinion, the oniy permanent structure for storing tte h£V ^ rts Pr |m act t0 the stream corridor is reason provided by the aP.P|lcan‘*0.P®'pfacuf’baTLnstru^^^ was begun without a building for the applicant's Ponv®n'®n.°® ®nhd f1.?' LpLam would have to bring in top soil, seed, permit, Mr, Sheidon contended tpa*th® Jp“?ch is unreasonable in light of the variance mulch, and monitor the site of r®ye9®’a,'° ’ jnciudina the benefits of oieaning up the requested. Foilowing further d'scuss^a; ,, aDnrove the requested variances with the appearance of the site. Member Sager ,P s,0ra,|0n pton for revegetation aiong condition that the applicant prepa approvai of the buiiding permit. Mr, Sheldon the stream, which should b® aaP^ttad P"0Lplfcan° Director Joseph stated the condition p»-. n was movBd md ssconded ThomP''a'l Metes and Bounds property loca t ture for hay storage to remain located Avenue to allow an existing fenced-in struct th y equired 50-foot front-yard 3^7 feet from the front property «nerJ"g 'eu160‘ feet J^om the annual high-water setback and to allow the stl!uc|“[je f th required 30-foot setback, with the findings mark of the stream corr,d°r'nd,,®; ^Vff^nd the motion passed unanimously with and conditions recommended by statr, ana two absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Jb Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 5, 2008 1. 2. CONDITIONS: Compliance with the submitted application. ^The applicant shall successfully revegetate and restore an area of squ^^e fee ninnn thp «;trpam thus returning a presently non-vegetated stream bank area to a Sy vetered in order',o .he ,or,g.,erm 'oss under .he .ootpnn^ the shed as proposed. The applicant shall prepare this restoration plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the structure. a I OT 1A AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, & 3, PROSPECT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, s^backlby'upt°oafour f^eh^arianc^0frot^^^ti^n^^tG^^^(2Vto^lowon^par^^ng space to encroach into the reqtr.red and landcape e* -He Bl9 Thompson River In lieu of the required 50-foot setback/landscape buffer Chair Lynch recused himself in order to avoW so rrg^a“rd wi^at^'or -- - - -- Planner Chilcot, summarized the staH report. Jdhe WfEas-;* plan application (#08-03), which will ^*^''^01^2 0^ real estate d I0pment ,n order to construct the building and 0" 'he de''el0Pmen, plan, the applicant is requesting aPPr0Vf’°rLtpnt Code (evDC) Table 4-5 in order to build '■ KSU-SS-“01" ”“kmqu1re°da?nthe CO-CornmerC,|f Ouf/y#.,^ one rking space one f , 2. variance from Section 7 S^G.Zb^^) in ;equirement t0 provide an eight-foot-wide ptentirlg^rea between ^1 PQk|1^pjraaS0adgr^o construrt thre paiwng^J 40 feet frOT 3- mJ'ri": inTeuSd me reg^emin, that all paring lom shall be separated from high-water mark of river banks by a minimum of 50 feet. _ f|nds that in considering whether special circums'an“4prt“snpjopeSrt^^^^ setbacks from thereare special circumstances assocl^ftrlo arel on me lot, and a portion of the %- So7i,rsw« :ro1=?racticd^^^^^^^^^ SmenTc^rbrprCseS fee( of stairs sjrerr^e“ee;e5«^^ encroach into the eight-foot planting are . pncroach into the setback. Although there RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 February 5, 2008 and the building is stepped back to meet the river setback requirement and reduce impact to the site. Office use is a permitted use in the CO zoning district. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. No comments in support or opposition to the requested variances were received from neighboring property owners. Approval of the requested variances will not affect the delivery of public services. Upper Thompson Sanitation District desires to ensure access to the sewer main adjacent to the Big Thompson River. This concern can be addressed with the development plan review. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested variances with three conditions of approval. Public Comment: Joe CoopA/an Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant had originally wanted to construct a single-story building but had altered the plans to better fit the lot. The proposal minimizes impervious coverage, and the applicant has made a good effort to minimize impact on the site. Lon Kinnie, neighboring property owner, raised questions regarding whether the applicant would be required to extend existing curb and gutter beyond his driveway, whether the Town would require upgrades to Prospect Village Drive (a private road), and who would pay for any required upgrades. Director Joseph stated that all property owners along this private road have a collective responsibility to maintain shared access in a reasonably functional condition. These issues are not pertinent to the variance requests and should be brought forward during review of the development plan. Member Sager stated there are reasons for all three variance requests, and the requests are acceptable to him. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Dili) to approve the variance request for Lot 1 A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision, to allow stairs to be constructed within the required 15-foot side-yard setback by up to four feet; to allow one parking space to encroach into the required eight-foot side-yard landscape buffer by seven feet; and to allow the parking lot and landcape buffer to be 40 feet from the annual high-water mark of the Big Thompson River in lieu of the required 50-foot setback/landscape buffer, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent and with Chair Lynch abstaining. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. Planning Commission approval of the development plan application. 3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes prior to construction, shall verify compliance with the variances, and shall provide a setback certificate. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 10:11 a.m. John Lynch, Chair lie Roederer, Recording Seofetary