Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 1999-01-05BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment January 5,1999 Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair John Baudek, Members Jeff Barker, Lori Jeffrey, Wayne Newsom and A1 Sager All Senior Planner Joseph, Building Official Birchfield and Recording Secretary Wheatley None Chair Baudek called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES The minutes of the December 1,1998 meeting were accepted as presented. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY John Baudek was nominated Chair and A1 Sager was nominated Vice Chair and it passed unanimously. The Community Development Secretary, currently Meribeth Wheatley, was appointed as Recording Secretary. PORTIONS OF LOTS 24 & 25, BLOCK 10, TOWN OF ESTES PARK - SILVER MOON, LLC, APPLICANT - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.16.030.4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report as follows: This is a request for a variance for alteration of a non-conforming use. The property is zoned R-M, and since it does not front an arterial the use is non-conforming (section 17.16.030.4). It is now also grandfathered as a legal non-conforming use with respect to density on the site (17.20.020), and number of parking spaces provided (17.24.010). This is a request for structural alteration of a non-conforming use and density (as opposed to expansion) in the sense that the proposal is to replace five existing units with kitchens with five new units with kitchens. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report noting there would be no net increase in density. None of the existing units are now accessible to the disabled, the five new units are proposed to be accessible. The position of the proposed new units does meet the required river and property sideline setbacks. Also, the need to provide accessible units is a significant consideration. The accommodations use in this location is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses, and it visually separated and buffered from the existing residential uses to the north. Staff recommends approval of this variance request with the following conditions: 1. The interior of the new units, as well as the exterior access shall be made accessible to the disabled in compliance with current applicable Federal and State regulations. A site plan detail of the exterior access shall be submitted with the building permit application. 2. The owners shall agree to remove any of the existing encroachments in the Spruce Drive right-of-way at any time upon written request from the Town, as per Greg White’s memo. 3. A revised parking layout shall be implemented on the site, that shall improve site circulation and optimize the available parking on the site. This layout shall be presented for staff approval prior to application for a building permit, and it shall be implemented prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed units. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment January 5,1999 Page 2 Member Sager requested a recess in order to give the applicant additional time to arrive. He wished to review with the applicant the parking requirements due to the non-conformity. Chair Baudek agreed to proceed to Reports. REPORTS - TIME PERIOD FOR EXPIRATION OF VARIANCE. Senior Planner Joseph gave the Staff Report in response to Chair Baudek’s request to review the current four (4) months time limit for variances. Staff has recently received a draft of the proposed new regulation concerning the variance expiration period which was prepared by Clarion Associates as a part of the new Estes Valley Development code. Their recommendation for revision of the current code requirement is as follows: “Failure of an applicant to commence substantial construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one year of receiving approval of the variance or within six months of receiving a building permit related to the variance, whichever comes first, and to complete such construction or action within two years of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.” One year is a more reasonable period of time for construction and it is therefore more responsive to the applicant’s needs. As a practical matter, there is a need to balance the applicant’s time frame against the reasonable expectations of the neighborhood to have an opportunity to be informed and involved in the process and to comment on the request. Staff has researched four different municipal codes available for query on the Internet and found that three (3) out of (4) cities had one year expiration periods. The fourth had a three year period, and two of the cities had a provision for an administrative extension. Member Sager inquired as to the current fee amount, which has been $50 for several years. Discussion continued regarding what the appropriate fee should be in order to cover the costs of reviewing the variance request. Senior Planner Joseph pointed out that legal consulting and engineering fees are usually considered separate and billed to the applicant as such. END REPORT As neither the applicant nor a representative for the Silver Moon had arrived, it was moved and seconded (Jeffrey/Sager) to table the variance request until the next regularly scheduled meeting. There being no further business, Chair Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:20 a.m. Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Srcretary