Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2005-12-06RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 6, 2005, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Diii, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Wayne Newsom; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Chair Sager; Members Dill and Newsom; Alternate Barker Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Members Levine and Lynch Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the September 13, 2005 meeting. b. The minutes of the November 1, 2005 meeting. c. Metes & Bounds, 1601 Jacob Road, Tim and Gail McPhee/Applicant—Request withdrawn by applicant PARCEL NUMBER 3525121071. METES AND BOUNDS. 189 & 191 East Riverside Drive. Applicant: Paul C. Whvard — Variance request from Section 7.6.E.1.a(3) of the Estes Valley Development Code, requiring a twenty-foot river setback. and from Section 4.4. Table 4-5. requiring a minimum ten-foot side-yard setback in the CD - Commercial Downtown zoning district Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to allow an addition to be built ten feet from the annual high-water mark of the Big Thompson River rather than twenty feet from the high-water mark as required in the CD- Commercial Downtown zoning district, and to build the addition up to the southern property line. Buildings in the CD zoning district can be built up to the property line unless the adjacent property is residentiai. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor’s records, the adjacent property to the south is residential. There are two buildings on the applicant’s property. The building addressed 189 East Riverside Drive is a single-family residence owned and occupied by the applicant. The building addressed 191 East Riverside Drive is a restaurant. Mountain Munchies, which is owned and managed by the applicant. The proposed addition would be to the single-family residence. The applicant’s plans are to convert the existing portion of the residence into a retail shop and live in the addition. The applicant has made significant improvements to the property since purchasing it in 2004 and received approval for a variance in January 2005 to allow the installation of three picnic tables. Benches were installed instead, and since that time some concerns have been raised regarding the need for a safety barrier between the benches and the river. One of staff’s recommended conditions of approval addresses this issue. Planner Chilcott stated there are special circumstances associated with this lot that are not common to most lots in the CD zoning district—the lot is much less deep than most CD-zoned lots. The narrow depth combined with the front-yard and river setbacks reduces the possible building depth, so buildings must be either wider or taller. The proposed addition follows the line of the existing residence and will not encroach any farther into the river setback. The special circumstances related to the river setback are more compeliing than those related to the side-yard setback. Although there is no minimum lot-width RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 6, 2005 requirement for the CD zoning district, if the property was zoned R-^-Residential or R-2-Two-Family Residential, which both have ten-foot side-yard setbacks, it would meet the fifty-foot minimum lot width standards for both those zoning districts. However, if the adjacent lot were to change to commercial zoning, there would be no side-yard setback required. Planning staff recommends that an access easement be obtained from the adjacent property owner to allow access during construction of the addition and for future maintenance of that side of the addition. Director Joseph reiterated that the side-yard setback in the CD zoning district is zero feet; it is the history of residential use of the adjacent property that prompts the need for a variance. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed addition blends with the existing building and is in character with the neighborhood. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Estes Park Building Department, Estes Park Public Works Department, and Town Attorney Greg White. No comments regarding the variance request have been received from neighboring property owners. Members of the Board questioned the Chief Building Inspector, Will Birchfield, about the proposed safety fencing along the river. Mr. Birchfield stated installation of the fencing would be required if the variance was approved, given the scope of the project. If the fencing is properly designed and installed it will provide an adequate safety barrier. Public Comment: The applicant, Paul Whyard, was present and stated that he would eventually like to build a second story over the entire residence, move the residential use to the second floor, and use the ground floor as retail space. When questioned by Chair Sager, he explained the proposed roll-up door is not for a garage, but rather for access to storage space for personal and business items. Member Newsom asked the applicant about the proposed fencing and about parking for his residence. Mr. Whyard concurred that metal fencing similar to that used along the opposite side of the river would be nice if he can afford it, and stated that he will use on-street parking in front of his residence for personal vehicles. Member Newsom commented that Mr. Whyard had made real improvements to the property. Director Joseph pointed out that the applicant’s plans reflect a door and deck on the second story of the proposed addition; Mr. Whyard stated that he is currently working with a professional architect and has changed the plans so that there will only be windows in that location. It was moved and seconded (Dill/Newsom) to approve a river setback of ten feet in lieu of the required twenty-foot setback, and a side-yard setback of zero feet in iieu of the required ten-foot setback, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one alternate and one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. Compiiance with Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 19, 2005. 4. Compliance with Greg Sievers’ memo to Alison Chilcott dated October 20, 2005. 5. Construction of a fence/wall to provide a safety barrier between the river and the benches, with staff review and approvai of the fence/wall design and compliance with floodplain permitting requirements, if applicabie. 6. Recordation of an access/maintenance easement on the lot to the south prior to issuance of a building permit. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 6, 2005 3. PARCEL NUMBER 3525121069. NE Va Sec 25 T5N R73W. 221 East Riverside Drive. Applicant: Richard D. Slavdon & Sandra Patterson-Slavdon — Variance request from Section 4. Table 4-5, and from Section 7.6.E.1.af3) of the Estes Valiev Development Code to ailow a storaae shed to be located 2.42 feet from the side-yard lot line in lieu of the ten-foot side-yard setback required, and 7.42 feet from the annuai hiqh-water mark of the river corridor in the CD - Commercial Downtown zoninq district Planner Chilcott stated planning staff has requested that the applicant have the location of underground utilities checked and that they revise their application to more accurately reflect the high-water mark of the river prior to review by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant has agreed to request a continuance to the January 10, 2006 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) to continue the request to the January 10, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one alternate and one absent. A verbal vote was taken due to technical difficulties with the voting system. 4. TRACT B. BOOTH SUBDiViSiON. 1130 West Eikhorn Avenue. Applicant: D. Scott and Patty Eldridqe — Variance request from Section 7.6.E.1 .a(2)(b) of the Estes Valley Deveiopment Code to allow a siqn to be placed eiqhteen feet from the annual hiqh-water mark of Fall River in lieu of the thirty feet required in the A - Accommodations zon'mQ district Planner Chilcott stated this is a request for a twelve-foot variance from the thirty-foot river-corridor setback requirement in the A-Accommodations zoning district to allow a sign for the 4 Seasons Inn to remain eighteen feet from the high-water mark of Fall River. There are special circumstances and practical difficulties associated with this property in that the eight-foot front-yard setback and the thirty-foot river setback overlap, leaving nowhere to erect a clearly visible sign without approval of a variance to one or both setbacks. Planner Chilcott stated the variance is not substantial; with only posts placed within the setback, impact to the river corridor is minimal. The sign does not alter the character of the neighborhood, and adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. It is staff’s opinion that the new sign improves the character of the neighborhood. The request has been submitted to all affected agency reviewing staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. The Public Works Department commented that the sign must have a ten-foot separation from existing water mains and/or service lines; verification of this is a recommended condition of approval. Comments were also received from the Estes Park Building Department, Estes Park Sanitation District, and Rocky Mountain National Park. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Chair Sager noted it appeared that most of staff’s recommended condition #1 had been met. Planner Chilcott stated the colored flags and string at the location had been placed by the applicant, not a surveyor. Alternate Member Barker questioned how the sign had been erected without the applicant first receiving approval for a variance. Planner Chilcott stated that the original application for a sign permit reflected the placement of the sign within the river setback but that fact had been overlooked. An anonymous complaint prompted review of the sign placement. At that time, the sign was located within the highway right-of-way by six feet. The applicant was willing to move the sign, and staff felt it was inappropriate to ieave the business without a sign for the two-month period it would take to be heard by the Board of Adjustment and therefore approved a temporary sign permit. It was made clear to the applicant that the sign would have to be removed by January if the variance was not approved. Alternate Member Barker noted that a number of variance requests for sign placement have been denied and stated his objection to approval of the variance because such decisions by the Board of Adjustment may RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 6, 2005 not be made based solely on economic need. Planner Chilcott reiterated that the river-corridor setback and front-yard setback requirements leave the applicant no visible area in which to place the sign. Chief Building Inspector Will Birchfield stated the original sign was legally nonconforming. Although the owner lost the legally nonconforming status when the sign contractor cut down the posts of the original sign, the current sign has been placed in nearly the same location and is not in the public right-of-way. Member Newsom stated there is a need for commercial businesses in Estes Park, that such businesses need adequate signage, and the applicant has made an effort to place the sign in a reasonabie location. Member Barker stated he could not find any unique circumstances in this application. Public Comment: Jon Bryson, adjacent property owner, stated the new sign is an improvement and that he has no problems with the sign whatsoever. The applicant, Scott Eldridge, stated he had made an effort to work with Town staff to locate the sign in an appropriate place. He noted the sign is less visible than those on adjacent properties; if the sign was placed in the front yard, rather than near the road, it would not be visible at all. He stated the sign was smaller than the maximum size allowed. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Dill) to approve the variance to allow the sign to remain eighteen feet from the annual high-water mark of Fall River, and the motion passed. Those voting yes: Dill, Newsom, Sager. Those voting no: Barker. CONDITIONS: 1.A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with this variance and provide a stamped and signed setback certificate. This certificate shall also verify that the sign is not within ten feet of a water main and/or service line. This certificate shall be submitted to staff within thirty days of Board of Adjustment approval of the variance. No further permits shali be issued for this property until the setback certificate is received. 5. REPORTS Director Joseph announced that John Lynch has been appointed by the Larimer County Commissioners to fill the opening on the Board of Adjustment. Although Mr. Lynch had already made vacation plans and was unable to attend this meeting, he wiil be at the next meeting in January. Chair Sager expressed his appreciation to staff for the invitation Board of Adjustment members received to attend the Planning Commission luncheon in December. There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:52 a.m. Al Sager, Chair lie^ederer, Recording Secretary