The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2008-10-07I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7, 2008, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Chair John Lynch, Members Chuck Levine, Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, and A! Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Chair Lynch; Members Levine, McCreery, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Absent: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Recording Secretary Roederer, and Recording Secretary Trainee Karen Thompson None 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 August 5, 2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. 3.LOT 5, BLOCK 7, AMENDED WINDCLIFF ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 5th FILING, 3452 Eaglecliff Circle Drive, Owner/Applicant: Stephen G. and Pamalah C. Tipps — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the corners of an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the eastern property line and 11 feet from the northern and southern property lines in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1-Estate zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request for a variance to allow an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the front property line and 11 feet from the side property lines. A variance for this property was requested and processed by Laiimer County in 1995; the request was approved to allow the proposed residence to encroach into the setbacks. The residence was built according to the proposed footprint; however, it was rotated slighting during construction, resulting in a greater encroachment than was approved. New purchasers of the residence discovered this fact when a survey was conducted recently. Staff considers the current variance request a corrective variance. The property is zoned E-1-Estate, which is a one-acre zoning district with 25-foot minimum setbacks. The applicant’s lot is approximately 0.5 acre in size and is undersized for the zoning district. The residence has existed since 1995 with no concerns expressed by neighboring property owners or utility providers. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist. Planner Shirk stated the house was incorrectly located during construction, and without a variance, the house would have to be relocated. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. No comments in support or opposition to the variance request were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff’s findings appear in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the -^requested variance without conditions. Planner Shirk noted that current practices require anehgtne^s certificate at the footing and foundation inspection to ensure compliance with setbai^^quirements prior to pouring of footings or foundation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment z October 7, 2008 Public Comment: Amy PlummerA/an Horn Engineering was present to represent the appiicant. She stated the drawing prepared by Van Horn Engineering in 1995 was a part of the original variance request, not a setback certificate. Planner Shirk acknowledged this, as the drawing was dated July 5,1995 and the variance was not approved until August 1995. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the corner of an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the eastern property line and 11 feet from the northern and southern property lines, with the staff findings, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. LOT 25, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, LESS 1090-484, 530 Grand Estates Drive Owner/Applicant: Daryl and Lorraine McCown — Request for variance from Eistes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a deck addition existing residence 12 feet from the southern property line in iieu of the required 25- foot setbacks in the E-1 Estate zoning district Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow a 24-foot-by-12- foot deck addition to an existing residence. A sliding glass door was installed when the home was constructed in 1977 to access the area where the deck is ProPosedj applicants have owned the residence since the time it was constructed and have alway planned a deck in this location. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist on lot and whether oractical difficultv would result from strict compliance with Code standards, Planner CWIcott noted the proposed deck would be located 12 feet from the southern property line and would not enCroLh into the setback any farther than the existing garage- Spec a Circumstances do not result from the lot shape, vegetation, or topography, and the lot nearlv complies with the required minimum lot width. The applicant’s lot is zoned E- StatrwMch is Tone Lre zoning district. Therefore, special circumstances may result from the applicant’s lot size, which, at 0.38 acre, is significantly undersized for the zoning district The lot size more closely complies with the minimum lot size required in the E Ste zor^nq provides for a minimum iot size of 0.5 acre with required proposed deck would comply with a 10-foot setback. Based on received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: None. the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and me moxi H unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1 Compliance with the submitted application. Ill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7, 2008 5. LOT 19, BLOCK 3, LAKE VIEW TRACTS, Address To Be Determined, Owner: Archdiocese of Denver, Applicant: Our Lady of the Mountains Parish Request for variance from Estes Vaiiey Deveiopment Code Section 8.1 .A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060(13), to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue; Section 17.66.100(c), to allow construction of a 150- square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2 - Residential zoning district; and Section 17.66.110(3)b, to allow the sign to be placed within the required 8-foot setback from property lines Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060(13), to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church. The church is located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue 'I’he fign is proposed to be placed two feet from the northeast corner of Lot019’Bloc.k_3’L1a^® Tracts subdivision. The applicant also requests variance from Section 17.66.100 c) to allow construction of a 150-square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2-Two-Family Residential zoning district, and variance from Section 17 66.110(3)b to allow the sign to be placed two feet from the eastern property line of Lot 19 Block 3 Lake View Tracts, in lieu of the required eight-foot setback frorn property lines. Ihe required seTbaok from the property line adiacent to the Highway 34 right-of-way would be maintained. The Estes Park Municipal Code outlines findings that must be made in order for the Board No written comments were d'r°;. "ei9fa^or;enc\iPvTaV^^^^ opposition to the variance tequestSh Plann ng r“®"eabea:P and w;;atyimpaot the proposed materiais for the sign, w residence Planner Chilcott noted that the proposed sign would have on th^ewfmuJh^ompiy Va||ey Deve|op nt CodeISand0BuMng Codes^The sign i® Pr°P°®®d ar™™JJ,e®ytt^®'}egPPf™r^roposed toebe^uff ^ndstoi^erwith blackVIette)rinV Planning Lff does not believe the proposed sign would be injurious to the neighborhood. Pianner Chilcott stated “:Srnresla;eS^i1rr— located as close to the parking lot on Attorney White provided comments discern the sign is an off-promise sig ^ cO-Commercial Outlying zoning district indicating that it would be reasonab^ ?h^f^S yon which The church is located is zoned CO; sign standards to the proposed s,g^-1° , ^tecl js zoned R-2. The proposed sign rrd’reTrsfz: ?mi»^^ rdadrdl«KVS^^^^^^^^ ‘0 -- - - - counted against the signage permitted on the CO zonea lot. Discussion followed re0ard'"9hthe1sPor°sPPSaere feeranrPlame^ CWl’cottSimated0^ sign intent indicates the sign would be 160 square feet and nan code off,cer McEndaf)er would be approximately 90 square fe®* ° sauare feet however, because each clarified that each face of theproposedsign sq id of ,'he s|gn is counted toward ^r^tr^ra^e'eTorr that the sign code would allow I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 October 7, 2008 installation of an additional free-standing sign on the church lot, provided the total square footage of the signs did not exceed 150 square feet. Planner Chilcott went on to state the church has owned the property for approximately 50 years and prior to adoption of a Town sign code, in considering whether the applicants predicament could be mitigated through another method, the applicant could apply for a boundary line adjustment to move the property line of the church lot such that it wodd encompass the area where the sign is proposed. Per C0m";e[]tsDreoceived. Colorado Department of Transportation, if the church were to se'IJhe R-2-z°ned lot m the future CDOT would consider the sign an off-premise sign and CDOT regulations w°u require removal of the sign, regardless of any variance approval from the Board Adjustment. Planner Chilcott amended recommended condition of approval #1 such thf compliance S theCsimitted site plan (rather than site plans, as shown m the s a, ° J rpnijired She also added recommended condition of approval #6 as shown oeiow^ Plannfng staffs fadings appear in the staff report. Staff recomntends approval of fhe requested variances with six conditions of approval. Member Newsom noted that if ProP“edJ0“"0" noTb'e neeVeff asphalt parking area, a variance to a location could impact traffic circulation in rhrpTrLnghil0oraCthe — ofp^vided parking provided for the church mayiust meet minimum parking requirements. installed landscaping. The church owns the ad,ac^^^^^^^^^^^^ church had consiclered a and would like to use the Pr°Pehy f0' orooosed sign but did not want to reduce boundary line adjustment to accommodate PPd ,h pUrpose of having a two- second sign to be placed on the church property,uStat, g she stated she would v|go lsly property on Hillside Lane to be 'mPec ®d y 9 McEndaffer noted the applicant oppose a second sign on the Pr0Pe,^o-®'9" “p,, ,pe sign met the Code requirennents could apply for a sign permit for a s would be approved. Chair Lynch and “ere would be no 'urtHhlPUAta:^rconcerrare premature and are not part of the rnt vS by - BOard- rth 13^- -"5 Sdhl"o“^ ''arian“ aS Pr0P0Sed- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 October 7, 2008 It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts, to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Cathoiic Church iocated at 920 Big Thompson Avenue, to aiiow construction of a 150-square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2-Residential zoning district, and to allow the sign to be placed within the required 8-foot setback from property lines, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and as amended by Pianner Chilcott, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in FAVOR: Levine, Lynch, McCreery, Sager Those voting AGAINST: Newsom CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application, including the proposed sign size shown on the submitted Sign Site Plan. However, staff shall have the authority to approve minimal revisions to the signs in the future without further Board of Adjustment review. 2. This sign shall be attributed to the lot addressed 920 Big Thompson Avenue, rather than Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts, i.e., the sign shall count towards sign allowances, such as the number of allowable signs and maximum allowed sign area, at 920 Big Thompson Avenue. 3. A sign permit shall not be issued until a draft sign easement and a draft electric easement are approved by staff. 4. A recorded copy of the sign and electric easements shall be submitted to the Town within thirty days of sign installation. 5. The applicant shall obtain any required electric permits and inspections. 6. Compliance with the comments from CDOT dated September 25, 2008. This includes the requirement if the church sells the parcel containing the sign, and the property develops, the sign will be relocated onto the church's property since the second parcel will no longer have the same principal activity as the church's property. 7. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:58 a.m. nch. Chair derer,/Recordir/g Secretary