HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2002-08-06BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
August 6, 2002, 8:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Board:
Attending:
Chair Joe Ball, Members Jeff Barker, Judy Lamy, Wayne
Newsom and Al Sager
Chair Ball, Members Lamy, Sager and Newsom
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and
Recording Secretary Williamson
Absent:Board Member Barker
Chair Ball 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
The minutes of the July 2, 2002 meeting were accepted as presented.
2. PORTION OF LOT 7. RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION. 222 MORAINE AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ANDY ANDREWS - ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL SECTION
4.4.D.1.aM) & (2) OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Director Joseph reviewed the appeal. This is an appeal of staff interpretation of
those portions of the Estes Valiey Development Code that concern the regulation
of outdoor sales within the CD - Commercial Downtown zoning district. This is
not a site specific appeal. The decision made by the Board will be binding on all
properties in the CD zoning district regarding outdoor sales. Mr. Andrews
maintains that the Estes Valiey Development Code permits outdoor sales within
the CD zoning district. Staff’s opinion is that all sales within the CD zoning district
must be “wholly contained within the interior of a building.” Outdoor Sales is
defined in Chapter 13 as “...materials or other things to be sold are displayed
outdoors, including any sales under a permanent structure.” Outdoor sales are
not a permitted use in the Commercial Downtown district. Mr. Andrew’s primary
business is conducted in the interior of the buiiding and therefore the outdoor
display would be an accessory use. Mr. Andrews owns and operates a business
at 222 Moraine Avenue, and has been sited for a code violation for displaying
goods for sale outside his building.
Andy Andrews owner of the business at 222 Moraine Avenue was present. He
read into record his appeal that was supplied to all Board Members and staff. He
stated that the Estes Valley Development Code does not supply definitions for
building or permanent structure. Mr. Andrews read the County’s definitions for
building and structure. He stated that the portion of his building he is using has a
roof, electricity, floor, water, walls, and posts and is handicap accessibie. He
stated he is not doing outdoor sales. He is using that part of his building as
display only. Based on the County’s definition of a permanent structure, Mr.
Andrews feels he is within the bounds of the code and that his outdoor display is
within the permanent structure of his building.
Member Sager stated he does not question that Mr. Andrews has a building with
a covered porch and walkway. He reread the section of the code pertaining to
outdoor sales. He asked Mr. Andrews why he does not understand the difference
from exterior and interior. Mr. Andrews stated that the code does not define
interior. He does not have to assume a conservative definition of interior and
feels he is within the parameters of his building.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
August 6, 2002 Page 2
Member Newsom stated the charts from the code are very clear and state that all
sales and displays must be inside a building.
Director Joseph stated that Mr. Andrews has made an effort to make a distinction
between outdoor sales and outdoor displays. The definition of outdoor sales
includes the display of goods, materials or other things to be sold.
Member Newsom stated he is sympathetic, but Mr. Andrews has selected the
location which has never been very successful. Member Newsom advised that it
is clear to him that the code states sales and display will be inside the building.
Chair Ball agrees with Member Newsom’s statements.
Based on the duties of the Board of Adjustment and staff findings, it was
moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to deny the appeal to staffs
interpretation. The motion passed with Newsom, Ball and Sager voting yes.
Lamy voting no.
6. REPORTS
Director Joseph stated that the State Statute requires the County Board of
Adjustment to operate on a super majority. Director Joseph read the Statute into
the record. There is no similar Statute that governs the Town Board of
Adjustment. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment is a joint Board with both
Town and County representatives. The enabling legislative that allows the Town
and County to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement did not address
whether or not a joint Board would be bound to follow super majority. Town
Attorney White and County Attorney Haag feel that this Board should choose to
use either the simple majority or the super majority. Director Joseph stated that
the Intergovernmental Agreement should be amended to reflect the use of the
simple or super majority once a decision is made. The final decision will be made
by the Town Board and County Commissioners. Director Joseph would like to
present this Board’s opinion.
Member Sager stated he would vote for a simple majority. He feels that if a super
majority is necessary that a hearing should not be held unless all members are in
attendance in order to have a fair and impartial hearing. Town Board and the
Board of County Commissioners should consider having associate members that
could take the place of absent Board Members. Member Lamy concurs with
Member Sager’s comments.
Member Newsom and Chair Ball are also in favor of a simple majority. Chair Ball
feels the reason we have a simple majority is to have a tie breaking vote and to
eliminate motions failing due to a lack of votes.
There being no further business, Chair Ball adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m.
Joe Bdll/Chair
Jacglielyn^Williarnson, Recording Secretary